Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure/Archives/2008-03

Consolidation of articles

I move that we merge the articles on the individual motions into the articles on the different classes of motions. For instance, adjourn (motion), recess (motion), etc. should be merged into privileged motion. This makes sense because there probably is not a whole lot to write about those individual motions at this time. They can be spun off again if the article starts to get too long. There should be redirects from the name of the motion to the article on the class, of course.

In the case of the incidental motions, it makes sense to have point of order and appeal in the same article, since the latter is often used immediately after the former. Many of the other incidental motions also share related functions, e.g. division of the question and consider by paragraph. And since the subsidiary motions share the same four key characteristics, and since both the privileged motions and the subsidiary motions fit into an order of precedence, it is logical to put them together under the articles about their classes. If we do spin them off again, we should have another template, e.g. Template:Motions, listing all the subsidiary motions in their order of precedence, so that it will be obvious to the reader where the individual motions fit into that scheme.

See list of motions for the complete list.

Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient content for an article on each motion recognized by the major parliamentary authorities. Discussion could include the distinguishing characteristics of the motion as recognized by Robert's Rules, whether the motion is recognized by other authorities in various countries, and the like. They will not be long articles but I think they are worth having. Or in other words, I move that Obuibo Mbstop's motion be postponed indefinitely. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, well in that case, we can have the sidebar. I really need to get a copy of Sturgis and some of these other manuals to make sure that the order of precedence and so on are uniform from one manual to the next. The Template:Infobox motion could get kinda complex, as with lay on the table, for instance, we may want to specify that the vote required is two-thirds under the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure under certain conditions and a majority under other conditions, or under RONR. I suppose the infobox template will need to be reprogrammed to accept (and automatically double-categorize) motions that have something like "M or P" as the input for the "class" field. Adjourn (motion) would be an example of that. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It does get complicated if one takes it all too seriously, although the modern trend at least in the United States is generally toward simplification. There are all sorts of charts and summaries available through associations such as the NAP or AIP that might be useful in this work. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I semi-agree with NYBrad. (I guess that would be a motion to divide the question.) I think we should take it on a case-by-case basis and I also think we should not rush into anything. In other words, my immediate suggestion is that we not do any wholesale merging right now, but simply fill in the redlinks with articles and expand the articles we have, and see what happens. If an article does not currently exist (such as for many of the incidental motions), we can do a "group" article, such as an article on "Motions relating to voting methods" and "Requests and inquiries." We should probably talk about this before we do it, so we are not undoing each other's work. I also think that we should hold off on any new templates, infoboxes etc. until things have settled down, so we are not wasting work. (And it wouldn't be my work, since I don't know how to create templates and infoboxes.) Some of my comments above may be contrary to something I said at the AfD, for example I think I said we don't need a separate article on incidental main motions, and yet I just expanded that article. We can always merge them later. And keep in mind that even if we do end up with "group" or "class" articles for some motions, the individual motions should be made into redirects so we don't have the redlinks. Do I have a second?  :) Neutron (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we use seconds here. :) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, it was a joke. What I really meant was, is there unanimous consent? (We can make these parliamentary procedure jokes for the rest of our lives, but we probably ought to stop it.) Neutron (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to Obuibo: Above you say that our article on "lay on the table" should mention the two-thirds voting requirement in Sturgis (The Standard Code.) The article already does say that. I know because I wrote that part myself, and I just checked and it is still there.  :) I have been systematically adding bits and pieces from Sturgis into some of the articles, and I also re-created the article on the Sturgis book itself. Also, you say you want to make sure the order of precedence, etc. is the same between the different manuals. Please note, some of the motions in Robert's don't even exist in Sturgis, and others are renamed. (I have mentioned that in some of the articles as well, I believe I added that to "Objection to the consideration of a question", which is not recognized in Sturgis.) If you do get a copy of Sturgis, 4th ed., I suggest you read Chapter 29 first: It discusses all of the significant differences between that authority and Robert's, and lists all of the motions where the two differ. I believe that, except for some of the motions being missing in Sturgis, that the order of precedence is the same, but there could be some exceptions. There are other differences as well, for example, if an organization has monthly meetings, and a motion is tabled, under Sturgis the motion dies if not taken from the table at the end of that meeting, but under Robert's it can be taken from the table at the next meeting. (I already put that into the article on tabling.) I guess the question is, just how detailed do we want to get? Neutron (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Perhaps we will have separate infoboxes for usage under RONR, Sturgis, etc. As you suggest, I'm going to hold off on new infoboxes, etc. for awhile. Template:Motions was basically just to illustrate the concept I was talking about. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is all going to get really ugly if we have infoboxes for each authority in each article, especially if people start adding in other manuals, i.e. Mason's, and manuals from other countries. There is already some material about India's procedures in a few articles. I am a little concerned that things could get out of control here. But the immediate point is, good, we can figure out what to do about the boxes later. Neutron (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Subsidiary motions sidebar

See Table (parliamentary) for an example of the new sidebar, which is at Template:Motions. This template provides the order of precedence of subsidiary motions. However, would it be better to simply provide a reproduction of the chart that appears near the beginning of the tinted pages in RONR, "Chart for Determining When Each Subsidiary or Privileged Motion is in Order"? It very clearly shows which motions may be applied to which; which are debatable; etc. Since subsidiary and privileged motions fit into the same unified order of precedence, it seems to make sense to put them all in one sidebar. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Motion" article

The article on motions, to which many of the articles link, is Motion (democracy). However, yesterday, I created a new article, Motion (parliamentary procedure) which admittedly is a fork of the original article. The reason I did so is that the "democracy" version had some things in it that I did not think really fit in with what I think the overall structure of our articles should be. I also think that since most of our articles on specific parliamentary motions will be dealing with Robert's and perhaps Sturgis (at least at the outset), the "main" article on motions should be specifically geared to mesh with these other articles. At the same time I did not want to wipe out the stuff in the older article (such as "compositing", which I assume is a legislative term somewhere that I have never heard of in this context.) I also think the new title is more appropriate. What I would like to do is change the links in the various articles so that the word "motion" links to the new article that I created, rather than the older article. Before I do that work, I want to make sure there aren't any major objections to what I have done and what I plan to do. Neutron (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Many of these articles have big ugly tags on them. Presumably the AfD tags will go away in a few days, though I don't know why it hasn't been speedy-kept. That will still leave the multiple tags mentioning such things as expansion needed, categories needed, sources and wikilinks needed, unverified claims, etc. We need a plan as to how we are going to fix these problems and get rid of these tags. Admittedly I am not very good at citation formats, which is why I sometimes just drop an unlinked mention of RONR page whatever, which I know you aren't supposed to do. I figure I will get back to it later, but then of course the work (both here and real life!) starts to pile up. Also, the articles at present probably refer to Robert's book in five different formats. Someone needs to pick the right one and conform all the articles to it. That probably wouldn't be me. Neutron (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that Template:Cite book would be the best one to use. But you're doing the right thing by starting out with the page numbers; that's the important thing. The niceties can always be done later as a wikignome-type task (or possibly even a bot-driven task, in the case of bare urls). I'm leaving certain motions, such as take from the table, unwritten for now because it's unclear how that content will be integrated with the content on the counterpart motion (in this case, lay on the table). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about take from the table also. It is an odd one because, while it is logically paired with lay on the table, the two motions are in different classes. It is also a motion where the theory and the reality diverge very strongly: I suspect that the vast majority of the time that a motion is tabled in actual meetings, the motion to take from the table is never made, and the motion dies, intentionally. Perhaps "take" should have its own, one sentence article with a "soft redirect" to "table", which will contain the rules for both. But then where does the infobox go? Neutron (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points. As mentioned, I think these infoboxes, while intended to be a handy way to sum up key information, could end up being problematic, for many reasons. But I have yet to figure out a good solution.

Yeah, lay on the table is one of the most misused motions around. Whether it's used properly or misused, however, a question laid on the table dies unless taken up before the close of the next regular session (RONR 10th ed., p. 106). I remember that at a meeting of the GMU Student Senate, the Broadside sent a reporter to attend because there was a controversial cannabis-related measure on the agenda. Due to a snafu, copies of the measure had not been made, and therefore it was tabled until the next meeting, to allow time for printing (technically, it should have been postponed). The news article noted that it had been tabled. The reporter didn't even show up to the next meeting (probably assuming it had been killed). It ended up passing, but was later ruled by the Student Supreme Court to have been killed by pocket veto, because the Student Senate had adjourned for the winter break immediately thereafter. Ouch! That's what happens when you model your student government constitution after the U.S. Constitution, I guess. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was at a real-world deposition for a court case a few weeks ago. I'm in the United States but the witness was from Canada. He mentioned that a document had been tabled at the company's last board meeting, meaning that it had been laid before the meeting for discussion. The questioner assumed that he meant that the document had been put aside by motion, "laid on the table" in the American sense, but instead of explaining his assumption, he asked "and why wasn't the document considered at the meeting." The response was "I just told you it was considered at the meeting. It took 20 minutes to allay the confusion. Meanwhile, the meaning of "table" or "lay on the table" is different in the U.S. Congress from what it is in private assemblies using an authority like RONR. Clearly we are going to have some fun with these articles. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article Table (parliamentary) already covers the difference between the UK/Commonwealth usage of "table" and the US usage, complete with a similar anecdote from Winston Churchill about the confusion. It also covers the different usage in the U.S. Congress, which is explained in a footnote in Robert's Rules, as well as the differences between Robert's and Sturgis. We may already be further along than we think. Neutron (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Voting methods

I was writing the Motions relating to methods of voting and the polls article and noticed that there are basically two main types of things we talk about when referring to "voting methods." There are systems such as majority, plurality, preferential voting, etc. and then there are methods such as a rising vote, viva voce, black and white balls, etc. What is the proper nomenclature? Should we refer to preferential voting et al. as "voting systems" and viva voce et al. as "voting methods"? If so, there is another article, Voting methods in parliamentary procedure, which can be renamed. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And then of course, there is stuff like proxy voting. :) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we have an article on voting systems, it seems logical to go with the suggested nomenclature above. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And voting basis will be the name for the article on whether a majority, or two-thirds vote, etc. is required (RONR 10th ed., p. 389-391). So we have:

• voting method – Voice vote, show of hands, rising vote, etc.
• voting system – Majority, plurality, preferential voting, etc.
• voting basis – Majority, two-thirds, majority of entire membership, etc.

I see there is a bit of an overlap between voting system and voting basis. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(I have copied this to Talk:Voting basis, where there is a proposal to merge vote required for adoption into that article.) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Parliamentary procedure

As part of my ongoing series of articles/essays analyzing Wikipedia structure/process, I have begun writing Wikipedia:Parliamentary procedure. I think there are some interesting parallels between our principles and those contained in RONR. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

New editions of parliamentary authorities?

Has anyone heard any news about new versions of any of the major parliamentary manuals coming out? Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I had not, but I have learned that Google can answer almost any question. Sometimes even accurately, as would appear to be the case with this article from the New York Times. The article (written last May) says the 11th edition of Robert's is scheduled for 2011. That seems about right because the 9th came out in 1990 and the 10th in 2000. Neutron (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking, since we will probably have many dozens of articles quoting from the parliamentary manuals, whenever they come out with a new edition, it will be necessary to update all of them. Accordingly, we may want to have a specialized citation template for parliamentary manuals. It might have a field for the manual, e.g. D for Demeter, R for RONR, S for Sturgis, etc. And there could be another field for the edition number. Using #switch statements, the articles could be automatically categorized based on this template, e.g. Category:Articles citing Robert's Rules of Order, 10th ed.. Then when a new edition comes out, we can just look up that category and go through all those articles, updating the page numbers, edition numbers, and so on. This will also standardize our citation format and make it easier to change how the citations appear in all these articles simply by changing the template. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the RONR authorship team died last year, William Evans, so it might be slower.

Standard, in field, abbreviations are RONR with edition for Robert's Rules Order Newly Revised, TSC for The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, with Demeter either as Demeter or Dem. No new edition of Demeter is planned; the current version is from 1969. TSC might get a new edition in the next decade; the other three were 1950, 1965, 1988, and 2001. J. J. in PA (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

there has been talk of a new edition of RONR, but nothing definate. I would doubt we'd see a new edition of Demeter. No idea who, if anyone, is doing any new editions. Another work is Kessey's Modern Parliamentary Procedure, which AIP has revised and which is used by some medical associations. --Emb021 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved from main project page

• I was just mentioning the other day on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration that we had voted on an overly complicated motion that should have been subject to a division of the question. I was shocked when that came up a redlink! My time is limited at the moment but I will do what I can to help as we need to improve our coverage in this area substantially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutron (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Sure, I'm in for this. A couple of days ago I wanted to learn more about hoists as they're used in Westminster-style Parliaments, and nothing came up. I probably have more edit commitments than time these days (I have both in abundance), but I'll do what I can. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What's a hoist? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, see, part of the problem is that I don't know - I'm an RRO guy, despite being a subject of Her Majesty. Here's an introduction to the subject, but I was hoping Wikipedia would have more. It doesn't, sadly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I had never heard of it either, but based based on the link you provide, it looks like it has the same effect as the motion to postpone indefinitely. Many legislative bodies have developed similarly formalized routines that everyone in the body understands, but are not found in the rules themselves. For example, in watching debates in Congress on television, I have heard reference to a motion to "strike the requisite number of words", and I have never been sure what it meant. By the way, should this discussion be moved to the talk page? Neutron (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I presume that this actually is found in the rule's (Beauchesne's, in this case), although I'm not sure because, like I said, I'm an RRO guy. And I agree that it seems similar to a motion to postpone indefinitely, but I'm curious about its origin, given that it specifies a time period (and, in fact, appears to provide a choice between two time periods), which doesn't make a lot of sense if its effect is killing a bill. And in response to your second question, "probably". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• I can think of dozens of sources; I don't even know where to start. What sorts of sources would be good to begin with? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Well, I found out what Hoist (motion) is for. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• That much I'm clear on; I'm more wondering, given that the hoist seems to be always used to postpone a reading of a bill to a time in which the relevant legislature is not in session, what its history is. Was it originally used to postpone legitimately, and it was only in modern times that it took on the effective purpose of the indefinite postponement? Or was it ever thus? And, if the latter, what's the purpose of the time period that needs to be specified in the motion? So many mysteries, so little interest on my part in solving them...Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is indeed a mystery, and since we don't seem to have anyone on hand who is an expert on Canadian Parliamentary (large P) procedure, or who is willing to do the research at the moment, it will probably remain so. The time period looks like a legal fiction. The U.S. Congress has a number of these procedures that seem to be doing one thing but are doing another, like the motion to strike the requisite number of words, which has nothing to do with striking any words. And by the way, have you ever seen what happens when the U.S. House takes a final vote to pass a bill? The speaker announces the vote and (often) immediately says, "without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table". I was startled the first time I saw this on C-Span. Nobody had moved to reconsider the bill, nobody had moved to lay anything on the table, nobody had asked unanimous consent and nobody had given it! It is just a formula that has developed to make the vote final, and not subject to reconsideration, as explained here. Neutron (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I was reading somewhere that the type of reconsideration you refer to is used on important bills, and that theoretically, the reconsideration can be taken off the table later. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Strategic use of motions

I have started this article, which could develop into something quite interesting. As the article notes, many motions can be used to obtain the opposite end as their stated purpose. An analogy on Wikipedia would be starting an article and then calling up a friend and asking him to tag it for speedy deletion on some frivolous grounds. An admin might then see it and remove the tag. At that point, it would not be possible to place a speedy tag on it again. (Of course, this might end up backfiring if the admin deletes it on other grounds, so one might call up a second friend to remove the tag.)

There are many other ways that Wikipedia can be gamed, as David Quinlan's excellent essay, and these two Wikitruth articles, and our own essay note. For instance, one might as well vote "Speedy keep" or "Speedy delete" in deletion debates, regardless of whether it actually meets any criteria for such. It won't really hurt your position, and you might just have a better chance of winning. Of course, if you do it too much, people will catch on and eventually your opinions may come to be disregarded like Kurt Weber's RFA posts. But if you strategically do this only on a select few articles...

Getting to the point – in parliamentary procedure, there are many analogous maneuvers in which the processes can be subtly manipulated to achieve desired ends. Often, no one is ever the wiser. In a community where things are tracked so much more loosely than on Wikipedia, how much easier it could be!

I will relate another example from when I was on the Student Senate. As mentioned, our Student Constitution was based on the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, it had provisions for recess appointments if the Senate failed to confirm a nominee. Since the President's term was only one year, and the nature of a university environment (in which people eventually graduate and go away) made turnover in the Student Supreme Court high, recess appointments could easily allow the President to gain control over the Student Supreme Court for the remainder of her term. However, there was a provision that the Student Senate was to establish a register of potential nominees which the President would pick from; recess appointments could only be made if the Senate failed to create a register.

At the last Student Senate meeting of the fall semester, a motion was made to establish a register with a set of candidates that did not include the President's favorites. One of the Senators allied with the President moved to reconsider and enter on the minutes, and someone unwittingly seconded it. As a result, all action on the motion was suspended. After we figured out what was going on, we decided to adjourn and reconvene in fifteen minutes to take up the motion (allowable under RONR, 10th ed., p. 323). During the break, the Senator who moved to reconsider began speaking with the speaker pro tempore, asking that certain candidates be placed on the register. He objected to these candidates, citing for instance an alleged conflict of interest on the part of one Student Supreme Court nominee who was the wife of the Secretary of Administration (under the Student Body President).

That Senator whispered to me, "Come with me, they're being assholes and I'm about to cry." Feeling sorry for her, I went out of the room with her. She took me by the hand and started running rather rapidly, as far from the meeting as possible, until we met up with some friends of hers from the executive branch. Then she did some mental calculations (factoring in my absence), pumped her fist, and said, "Yes! They don't have a quorum."

Classic example of strategic use of parliamentary procedure (among other things). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've actually written several articles on tactics and strategy, but I'd doubt it it would be useful for Wikipedia. J. J. in PA (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Where might I find some articles? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary Journal, "The Art of the Coup d'Etat," October? 2005, National Parliamentarian "To Murder A Motion" 1995 (I forget which quarter), are the two main ones. There are a few parliamentarians out there that do this type of stuff, and fewer that write about it. J. J. in PA (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. Well, it counts as a reliable source, so we should be able to use and cite it in Wikipedia articles. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't really see how it would fit into general articles on Parliamentary Procedure. You could add it on to the appropiate rule discussion. J. J. in PA (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking it could go under Strategic use of motions (which we might broaden to strategic use of parliamentary procedure). We can write an article about pretty much any subject we can gather enough sources for and content to justify a separate article, e.g. Strategies for killing motions, etc. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary authorities used in the corporate world

What are the parliamentary authorities most commonly used in the corporate world, e.g. at shareholders meetings? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I find that asking Google these sorts of questions often produces results. Check out this article, which does not completely answer the question but does suggest that Robert's Rules is often specified, but perhaps not always used correctly: http://www.jimslaughter.com/corporate.htm. In part, that article is an advertisement for the use of professional parliamentarians (such as the writer of the article!) but is nevertheless interesting. Neutron (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, because shareholders do not share all of the distinguishing attributes traditionally associated with deliberated assemblies. In particular:

• "In any decision made, the opinion of each member present has equal weight as expressed by vote..."
• "If there are absentee members...the members present at a regular or properly called meeting act for the entire membership"

In this case, the opinion of members is weighted according to how many shares they have, and absentees may vote by proxy. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but remember that Robert's says (somewhere) that the usual rules are superseded by the organization's bylaws as well as any special rules of order adopted by the organization. I was a member of one board that had bylaws that permitted the board to modify the order of business in an agenda by majority vote; this effectively wiped out the rules regarding special orders, call for the orders of the day, etc. and mooted most reasons for motions to suspend the rules. Another body I was a member of adopted a set of special rules at the beginning of every meeting (it was effectively a twice-yearly convention) that, among other things, prohibited motions for reconsideration. That's a good thing about Robert's, it is adaptable to different circumstances. (I just wish it weren't so complicated.) Neutron (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering about rules of debate as well – does the guy who owns one share get the same right to two ten-minute speeches as the guy who owns 100 shares? Under RONR, you can change the rules of debate, but usually whatever you change them to still applies equally to everyone. I've ordered some other parliamentary authorities (TSC, DEM, and Mason's Manual) so I'll see what they have to say about it. And of course, I'll also google it if that proves fruitless. :) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In formal corporate settings, shareholder meetings typically consist of a question-and-answer session with management (which is not really subject to parliamentary law), and then the casting and counting of votes on proposals that have been distributed in advance. It is not really practicable (and in many instances is prohibited) to bring up new proposals that have not been put on the agenda in advance, because the shareholders who are not present and have submitted proxies will not be able to be heard (the proxy form usually gives the proxy-holder general authority to vote on unanticipated matters that may come up, but that doesn't always extent to surprise proposals from the floor). As a result, there often is very little scope in which traditional parliamentary procedure could operate in these types of meetings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this at http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/8-3conduct.html :

“ Roberts' Rules are viewed as inappropriate for several reasons. First, Roberts' and other rules of parliamentary procedure are so complicated that a typical stockholder is unlikely to understand, or become well versed in, their operation. Second, in order to run stockholders' meetings properly with parliamentary rules, corporations would be required to hire parliamentarians. Finally, and most important, Roberts' Rules were designed for deliberative assemblies in which each member has an equal vote. As a consequence, Roberts' Rules are not well suited to stockholders' meetings where each person's opinion or vote has a different weight depending on the number of shares that person owns. Moreover, Roberts' Rules are especially not well suited to situations in which management has already solicited proxies sufficient to control the outcome of all decisions being made at the meeting. ”

I will summarize this at Parliamentary procedure in the corporate world. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

I went ahead and added reconsider and enter on the minutes to the list of DYK candidates at Template talk:Did you know. As long as we're creating a bunch of new articles, if we run into anything intriguing, we may as well take the opportunity to nominate it for DYK so it can be shared with the world. Among the criteria are that the article should be at least 1,500 characters and created/significantly expanded in the last 5 days. By "significantly," I mean fivefold. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal

Would anyone have any interest in creating a Parliamentary Procedure Portal? (See Wikipedia:Portal.) I wonder, are there a lot of people actually use these portals? If we go this route, we'll have to be reasonably diligent about maintaining it, or it could end up at WP:MFD. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cite parl

I went ahead and created this template for citing parliamentary authorities. It should enable us to uniformly format our citations pretty easily, and reduce some of the labor involved, since it automatically provides the full title, year, and author, given the abbreviated title and edition. When it comes time to change all the citations to reflect a new edition of one of these authorities coming out, we can temporarily set it up to automatically categorize the article if it cites a given edition of a parliamentary authority. Obviously, this will need some tweaks to get it up to speed, but here is a demonstration of the type of citation it generates:

Robert, Henry M.

   (2000).
   Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th ed., p. 624

Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Shall we classify articles by importance?

At present, we classify all articles in our WikiProject by their quality (e.g. Stub, Start, B, GA, A, FA). I think it is important for every article to be ranked in this way, at a minimum, since it is helpful information to readers and those wanting to compile Wikipedia 1.0 and such. Abd and others have mentioned that we should also have verification of references, although I leave that to him to implement.

Shall we also classify articles under our purview by importance? I'm not sure whether other WikiProjects actually make much use of the importance ratings; for instance, Universal Declaration of Human Rights hasn't made a whole lot of progress since it was listed as "Top-Importance." But perhaps it is useful for purposes other than just stating what our own priority is in bringing it up to speed? Here is a sample importance scale:

Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important".

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience, but which are of high notability in other places, should still be highly rated.

Status	Meaning of Status
Top	This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High	This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid	This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low	This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.

Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See also

What does anyone think about the idea of putting a "See also" link to List of motions in each "motion" article? Although there are some categories for these articles, it seems to me that this would be a simpler (and additional) navigational tool. However, I did not want to add the link to 20+ articles until I knew there were no objections. Neutron (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Actually, I wonder if it might be useful to develop a sexy navigational template that includes links to a lot of the more relevant motions. Or maybe one template per system of rules of order? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved article

I have moved Dilatory (now a redirect) to Dilatory motions and tactics because it seemed more descriptive. If anyone objects, leave a note here, although the discussion should probably take place on the talk page there. Perhaps I should have discussed it first, but "Dilatory" by itself seemed clearly inadequate as an article title. Neutron (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also agree. J. J. in PA (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Navigational template

What do people think about this? Feel free to be brutal; the realization that navigational templates aren't my thing will not strike too close to my wiki-pride. Also, if anybody knows how to make the "Motions the bring a question again before the assembly" wrap as a single wikilink, please make it so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty, and an excellent start, but if we plan to put this on the pages for all the motions, I think it would be better to have a more generic "parliamentary procedure" or "motions" navbox, since some people who use those motions use TSC, DEM, etc. rather than RONR. SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How shall we decide which concepts to include in this thing? What about disciplinary procedures, voting basis, etc. and the articles that fall under those headings, such as censure (motion) and majority of the entire membership? I was about to add a line on the different voting bases to the navbox, but I suppose voting basis may be sufficiently covered by having a wikilink to it in Template:Infobox motion, which is also included on the page of every motion. SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is great, thanks to Sarcasticidealist for putting it together! I have made a couple of comments on the user/talk page where the template actually resides at this moment. I do have a couple of "global" comments, which I will make here. Anyone can feel free to either put applicable responses under each of my separate comments, or refactor this section to make separate sub-threads, whatever is appropriate.

• I think the name of the navbox (referring to "Robert's Rules) can probably stay as it is, rather than making it more general. Some of the motions listed do not exist, or have different names, under some of the other authorities, and specifically under the second-most-used authority, The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, which is the only other one that I am familiar with. At the same time, having multiple navboxes would get ugly. So I think we can just go with Robert's. Also note that, as of my edits the other day, the article on TSC summarizes the major differences between the two authorities, so if people want to see what is different, they can just click on that link in the navbox.
• One of the unresolved issues from the recent AfD is whether we really need separate articles for some of these motions. I think there was general agreement that some of them could be combined into larger articles. Since that time, however, articles have been created for all (or almost all) of the motions. I have been waiting until several of us got the chance to review and/or expand these articles, and to maybe leave them up for a few weeks, to see which ones should be merged, and then have that discussion here. I think, for example, that the articles on "requests and inquiries", which will never be more than stubs by themselves, could be merged into one "complete" article which would get a ranking further up the scale. The question would then be whether to merge the entries in the navbox, which would require the undoing of some of the work that Sarcasticidealist has done, or to simply have the separate entries in the navbox point to the same article. I think we can go ahead and make the navbox "live", but with the understanding that the "article set" is not necessarily stable and there may have to be some significant edits to the navbox in the future.
• Well, I had only planned for two, but here is a third comment: The title of the box refers to Robert's Rules of Order by Henry Martyn Robert. Since almost all of the references in our articles are actually to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th ed., should that be the title? I wouldn't even ask, since most people just know it as "Robert's Rules" regardless of edition, except that the authors are different. (Actually the authors are listed one way on the cover and a different way on the title page, but in either event, the current edition has at least four authors.) Neutron (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to your points:

• I think I've incorporated the suggestions you made on the template talk page;
• I actually (before seeing your above comment) removed the other authorities from the navbox, for basically the reason that you suggest leaving the title general. But now I do see some merit to putting the section back in, under the title "other parliamentary authorities" (rather than simply "parliamentary authorities"). Thoughts?
• On the question of merging articles, I'd say that if we merge, we should reduce the entries on the navbox accordingly.
• I think General Robert is a good inclusion on the navbox even if the navbox is more about RRONR10. It still bears his name, after all. Similarly, I think it would make continued sense for a Wikipedia navbox a hundred years from now to still include links to Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger. Besides, one of the most frequent questions I'm asked when I give RRO workshops is "Who's Robert?" (this is probably a sad commentary on the quality of my workshops). As far as I can tell, none of the authors of the later editions have Wikipedia articles; if they did, I'd favour including them too. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several problems with naming the template Robert's Rules of Order:

• This does not present a very global perspective, as RONR is not even the most commonly-used parliamentary authority in countries such as Canada.
• What about these weird dilatory motions such as hoist (motion), pass on, etc., as well as take from the desk (not the same as take from the table) that are used in legislative bodies but don't appear in RONR?
• These motions existed long before RONR, and are used by many bodies that don't use RONR. Indeed, some of their most important uses are in legislative bodies that don't follow RONR, but Mason's Manual. Even the corporate world is moving away from it, but they still use a simplified set of these motions.

Really, the only reason for having the template be named after RONR is that it has 90% popularity in the U.S. for private associations, and most of the subsequent parliamentary authorities had simplified rulesets that didn't include some of the motions in this template. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

I was thinking, it would be good to get parliamentary procedure to featured article status. It obviously has a long way to go, but there's certainly enough information out there to put together something FA-quality. I'm going to break history of parliamentary procedure off into a separate article. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary Inquiry

I am fairly new around here. How do projects like this work, and how can I help? I have some knowledge of The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure with which I work fairly often and I have copies of the 3rd and 4th editions. My familiarity with the other codes is minimal. Can anyone direct to an area where I can be useful? --Maegara (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You can sign up as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Parliamentary_Procedure#Participants. Also, you can add our cool userbox to your userpage by copying and pasting this text into it:

{{User:Ubx/WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure}}

Aside from helping us advertise ourselves :) there are a lot of articles on motions that need expansion; see list of motions. And of course you can watch this talk page and the members' contributions and see what we're working on. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposals

There had been a proposal above to do a major consolidation of articles. I am not ready to tackle that, nor do I think that it is necessary at this point. However, there are a few merges that I think should take place, involving the most obscure motions and classes of motions, and will propose them as I get time, and list them here so members of this project will be aware of them and can comment on the respective talk pages. (We can comment here on the general subject of mergers/consolidations, but comments on the specific merger proposals should take place where the merge templates point to.)

First proposal: Merge Reconsider and enter on the minutes into Reconsider. I have set up the discussion at Talk:Reconsider#Merger proposal.

Second proposal: Merge Incidental main motion into Main motion. I have set up the discussion at Talk:Main motion#Merger proposal. Neutron (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolution on Sarsaparilla

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I move that the following resolution be adopted: Whereas, Sarsaparilla, the founder of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure, has been one of its most active and productive contributors; and Whereas, The reasons for Sarsaparilla's ban from Wikipedia were unrelated to his parliamentary procedure-related work; and Whereas, There does not appear to be any evidence that Sarsaparilla has made any bad-faith edits to any pages under this WikiProject's purview; and Whereas, While speedy deletion criterion G5 states that articles written by banned users may be deleted, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion also states, "Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria"; and Whereas, While Wikipedia:Banning policy states, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves," it does not require such reversions; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that it is the sense of this WikiProject that edits to, and creation of, articles under its purview should not be reverted or deleted solely on the basis of a suspicion that they were done by Sarsaparilla. Jason O'Bannon (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC) You'll have to try to make that case over at WP:BAN, since this is a project-wide issue rather than a Wikiproject issue. Of course, you can't make that case there, because you're banned and you're refusing to go through the proper channels to try to get unbanned. I personally wasn't reverting any of your edits when it seemed like you were trying to get unbanned and/or when it appeared that you were going to go away as soon as your essays were appropriately dealt with. I've started reverting all of your edits because it's become apparent to me that you're not going away after all, and allowing your edits to stand - no matter how good they are, which I wouldn't know because I don't read them - is an encouragement for you to keep popping up. I've responded to the above post, but I will revert any similar ones in the future for reasons that I've just explained. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Sarsaparilla made an additional edit here, as an IP editor, that was reverted, as promised, by Sarcasticidealist.[1] The arguments presented in it are cogent and applicable, and, instead of diving into an unnecessary reversion, I simply point to the diff for Sarcasticidealists revert. The argument below is mine, not Sarsaparilla's. The deletion or reversion of material by a banned editor is not required, it is allowed; discretion is in the hands of any administrator. So Sarcasticidealist is within his rights as an administrator to remove this material. However, we must always remember Rule Number One, which may here be summarized that the welfare of the project comes before any other consideration. Even if there were a rule that banned user postings must be deleted or reverted, WP:IAR could require that they not be so; however, this would involve a conflict which would, as Sarcasticidealist has suggested, be properly taken to WP:BAN. But there is no such rule. Perhaps Sarcasticidealist should take the matter there if he wishes to change this. As I understand the matter, we are free to accept material, in article space, from any user. The source of the material isn't normally considered relevant and, while we may turn a jaundiced eye to users who have been found to be engaged in, say, subtle vandalism through misrepresentation of sources, there has been, as noted by Sarsaparilla, no activity even remotely resembling that in his work on parliamentary procedure articles. I have seen some of the material reverted out by Sarcasticidealist, and these edits would not normally raise an eyebrow, they are the normal good work of an active editor. Sometimes Sarsaparilla is not strong on providing sources, but, like many old-time users, he builds articles first, based on knowledge of a subject, and sources appear, or what can't be sourced is removed eventually. This is classic Wikipedia article-building. Everything I have seen seemed good enough to be acceptable as a start, and some was much better than that, it was indeed fully sourced. Now there is a simple solution which allows Sarcasticidealist to waste his time enforcing a non-existent rule (or, alternatively, to stand for the principle that a banned user is a banned user, dammit, and we can't allow them to say "boo!", and it is worth as many hours of our time as it takes), while at the same time using the material. Any of us can, quite simply, bring it back in. There is an exception. I understand that Sarsaparilla has been contributing articles that are speedied or just plain immediately deleted. A non-admin can't do anything about that, but there are admins involved here who could, if they desire. None of this would indicate, in any way, that they condone the behavior of Sarsaparilla. Simply that they see the contributions as sufficiently sound that the likelihood is that they benefit the project. So, in the absence of objection, I may start bringing these reverted contributions back in, given that the reason for reversion in the first place was not related to content but to what is essentially an ad-hominem argument, which we don't accept in Article space. I will review each contribution for general acceptability, taking responsibility for them. Where they are sourced from materials not accessible to me, I will note this in Talk, so that special attention may be paid by someone who has the sources or easy access to them. And I would ask the admins among us to retrieve deleted articles. If desired, they may directly restored if the admin thinks them appropriate, or, if there is any question, they could be dropped in my user space with notice to me. And thanks.--Abd (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I find this fascinating but that is because I am relatively new here. I will probably tire of it shortly but before I do, I'll venture into the fray to make a few comments. I have researched enough of the edits by the Sarsaparilla cohort (in the Parliamentary Procedure Project) to see that he (gender assumption) has made worthwhile contributions, if not always in content, at least certainly in effort and in many places leadership. I don't have a personal judgment about this user; I may never form one. I do find much of his current behavior annoying and wish it would stop - but I don't have enough background to know if that is just him or the current situation he has found himself in or has placed himself in. I have found *some* of his edits in the parliamentary procedure project inappropriate - and I fully documented the reasons why I felt that way -- just before Sarcasticidealist deleted the original so it may be hard for someone to put my comments against the original. I am not concerned that Sarsaparilla's edits were deleted by the admin; there seemed plenty of reasons to do so. I may be mistaken about what I read in Abd's post above -- that according to Abd, Sarsaparilla edits in Parliamentary Procedure were not a problem except for lacking initial source citations -- but if he did say or imply that, I respectfully disagree with Abd's claim. Sarsaparilla has made edits that were inappropriate. At the same time, I see Sarsaparilla's hand in some recent editing of a template - and that shows the positive that he can do -- although I do not approve of his continued attempts to get around the ban. In a semi-anarchical web space it is particularly hard to discipline child-like behavior. (Sorry Sarsaparilla, please take it as my opinion of some of your "behavior", not you, behavior which I can understand, but not justify, as possible reaction to feeling abused/attacked.) I do support the actions of the admin, Sarcasticidealist, at this time because of everything I have found out so far. I'll stay tuned for more, I'm sure it will continue. Parlirules (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC) (unindent) I have seen edits from Sarsaparilla that seemed inappropriate in some sense or other, but none -- in the parlipro area -- that were bad faith, unreasonable to, at least, insert as seed text. The Sarsaparilla case is a complex one, with a lot of smoke obscuring the facts, I see that Sarcasticidealist has informed you of his view of the history. It's not that this view is wrong, it is that it is his perspective of the history, and much of Sarsaparilla's history has one appearance and a different reality behind it. It's common, for example, for his first block to be presented as being due to one reason when the actual proximate cause, without which there would have been no block, was quite different, and is, essentially, never mentioned because the action wasn't legitimate in itself, even though it was post-facto approved by two arbitrators (itself highly unusual). The sole question here, though, is what to do with those edits by a blocked user. And I've made two proposals. One is that SI, possibly, simply stop his enforcement actions where they don't help the project. But I could easily understand objections to that, it might set a bad precedent, etc. So the other is that any of us can look at these contributions and, if they have been reverted, bring them back in. Because these contributions are coming in through many different accounts -- that is the only way he can edit -- it's a little tricky to find them, but some of it isn't hard. I'll document what I'm doing so anyone can follow it who wants to. My intention is not to simply find the blocked user's contributions and revert them back without examining and personally approving them, and thus without taking responsibility for them as reasonable and furthering the project. (To do so would be meat puppetry for a blocked user, seriously prohibited.) I won't do this with anything that is fishy to me, I'm reasonably familiar with parliamentary procedure, and I've served as a parliamentarian, though I'm not officially one, nor do I consider myself a true expert. --Abd (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC) One of the pleasant surprises for me on Wiki is finding people who are articulate when they write. Thanks. As a reply to the above postings, I offer this simplistic view: SI's approach is more concerned with ORDER; he is essentially trying to keep order. Sarsaparilla's actions, however, indicates he doesn't mind chaos, in fact, he may find that being disruptive provides him with a more interesting world. I haven't read enough of Abd's postings to give me any specific impression except that Abd probably finds it easier to tolerate Sarsaparilla's disruptive behavior because of some kinship of ideas they both have in common. [That's as far as this Dr. Phil can go.] These simple impressions lead me to the following: SI's imposing of order (banning, deletion) could be arbitrary but I think not. If I am to believe his rendition of events, or even half of it, his process of imposing sanctions has been orderly, incremental, and in response to Sarsaparilla's repeated actions. Like the chairman of a meeting, an admin does not have to be perfect in his position, but he has to strive to be fair, and he has a responsibility to look out for the entire group, which extends beyond the parliamentary procedure project. I believe SI is well within this boundary. On the other hand, I hear an argument from Abd that what counts as important is that the value that Sarsaparilla can (or did) contribute in one arena (parliamentary procedure) outweighs the disruption he might also bring in that arena, and, if I understand Abd's proposal, that the decision about Sarsaparilla being allowed to contribute in parliamentary procedure should be largely decided by those editing in this area, despite what Sarsaparilla might be doing elsewhere. I'll call this local FAIRNESS. I am not especially in favor of this unless there is an understanding by involved parties on what the expectations are and what to do if they are not met - a tricky situation to set up. The problem with trying to decide between ORDER and local FAIRNESS, again I am oversimplifying, is that there is no good way for an admin or a group to decide this. In fact, the decision can be simplified down to a) keep Sarsaparilla out and be done with it; he's already proved he is a problem, or b) give him another chance in this arena, because he has been less disruptive here than anywhere else. Neither choice is better then the other, and if you think my choices are too simplified or are not the only ones, it still doesn't matter that much. Why? Sarsaparilla is in control of the final outcome. No matter what choice the group makes, Sarsaparilla has shown that he has the energy and initiative to disrupt that decision if he is motivated to disrupt it. That doesn't mean that his intentions are bad, wrong, good or noble; I can't judge that. It is quite likely that what others may view as a disruption, he views more as fun or as something stimulating. I don't see malice in his actions as much as I see he tends to react defensively to being challenged, and it seems his preferred defense is to be on the offensive. If you have read this all the way and are now expecting a solution from me, oops, I don't have one -- or rather I don't have one that I am comfortable with sharing right now. Let me think about it. Parlirules (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Since wikiprojects have absolutely no power at all, you can pass all the motions you like here, they have no weight at all and banned users edits can be removed on sight. --87.114.159.98 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Oh and if you keep socking around the ban to get edits in, someone over at AN/I will suggest that your edits are rollback on sight to get you to stop (then abd will turn up to oppose - which will just increase the level of support for such a move). --87.114.159.98 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Now, isn't this interesting? That IP is for User:Fredrick day, who was banned for vandalism and truly serious personal attacks and incivility. The history of the last block of Sarsaparilla was that Fredrick day, logging in as IP, started up an AN/I report on Sarsaparilla. I had some trouble finding it in the archives, but here is a page from history: [2]. This then led, perhaps, BlackKite to check Jordan's contributions (Sarsaparilla had become Jordan by this time, legitimately) and find a non-notable Easter Bunny Hotline article Jordan had created; my guess it was after spending all day working on parlipro articles.... Normally, this would have resulted in nothing more than a speedy deletion or PROD. It was not a hoax and, contrary to what was asserted in the process, it wasn't legally obscene (I've heard worse on the radio, practically every day.) Jordan was blocked. Now, Jordan is being carefully watched, and his contributions deleted, but is the same being done for User:Fredrick day? Jordan's offenses -- all of them -- were minor compared to what Fd did. None of them were mean, though one was defiant. Used to be that was actually respected around here. Times have changed. Now, as to the substance. It was already stated above, more than once, that banned editor's contributions can be reverted on sight. That's acknowledged. The question is twofold: one is that we can ask Sarcasticidealist to be more selective in this field. Whether he does that or not is completely up to him. The other is that we can revert, back in, what any one of us thinks a reasonable contribution. And that's what I've announced. Rollback is irrelevant, it is just a tool that makes it faster to remove a series of edits, and easier on the server. While there are things that can be done, it is technically feasible to actually delete edits, but it's a pain and is generally discouraged, it can cause collateral damage. Similarly, just as Fredrick day is apparently using various wireless connections to get around IP blocks, so too Sarsaparilla can do similarly, and blocking either of them could, again, do quite a bit of unintended damage. Sarsaparilla edits from a university library and from another IP; the latter has, I think, been hard-blocked. It would actually be easier to block much of Fd's access, because edits on those IPs not coming from him are rare, but this is likewise discouraged. Those are other people's networks; on the other hand, they have been left unsecure.... I have repeatedly asked Sarsaparilla not to evade the block, I have not encouraged him at all. As long as he is doing it, it would be quite difficult for me to negotiate a return for him. But part of the reason he continues, I think, is that he thinks a negotiated return hopeless. I think he's wrong, but, again, he is his own man. On the other hand, I have also told him that being blocked, he might "be betta off," to take a phrase from Lenny Bruce. He may have better things to do than help a project which has been so thoroughly rejecting of him. In any case, I haven't seen any objection here to restoring Sarsaparilla's edits, so I intend to start. I remain responsible, silence here is not specific assent to any particular edit, just to the idea that I might start doing this, that it is not intrinsically offensive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) I object. What I object to is this whole discussion taking place here, and the effort to draw the members of this WikiProject into a dispute that does not belong here. The issue here is not what Sarcasticidealist has done. As I understand it, a banned user's edits may be reverted by anyone. Even assuming that most such actions are taken by administrators, that means that any one of 1,000+ administrators could come along and revert the edits in question. So the focus should not be on one administrator, who is enforcing the rules as he deems appropriate. If there is a dispute over this, please take it elsewhere. This discussion needs to end, now. It is distracting from the effort to improve the articles on parliamentary procedure. Neutron (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Ditto!!! --Parlirules (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)|} IP addresses or socks for Sarsaparilla, for reference The following addresses are apparently Sarsaparilla and may have made useful edits to parlipro articles or project pages. Generally, these may have been reverted for block evasion; however, any user who finds the material useful may revert it back. (A user reverting these edits back in is taking responsibility for them.) Please add to this list if you find others. --Abd (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reviewed (If you have reviewed the contributions above, please move the link below and sign.) Special:Contributions/Abuv the law --Abd (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Special:Contributions/129.174.73.242 (needs a check of Riddick's ROP)--Abd (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Special:Contributions/129.174.73.59 Parlirules (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Special:Contributions/Jason O'Bannon Parlirules (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Special:Contributions/AwesomeD00d86 Parlirules (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Special:Contributions/129.174.73.39 Parlirules (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Special:Contributions/129.174.91.120 Parlirules (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)