User talk:Brews ohare/Structure of Wikipedia

The response to attempts to post this material on the Wikipedia article are transcribed below. Although there are a few remarks that made sense and led to corrections in the article, for the most part it is a case of death by a thousand tiny cuts by editors that simply don't want this material presented and also don't want to come out and say so.

Comments on the proposed section

 * Comments and corrections for this proposal can go below.

Brews ohare (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Looks like this belongs in an essay, not the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Angryapathy: Thanks for taking some time to look at this proposed section on WP structure. I think it is inaccurate to classify this proposal as an essay. An essay is an article that "contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors" related to "aspects of working on or with Wikipedia". See Wikipedia essays. Although this proposed sub-section may prove helpful in working with WP, this article doesn't address how that might happen. Rather it is intended as a plainly factual description of the organization of WP, with links to documentation regarding the authority of the various administrative groups, links to reports upon membership figures for these groups, and links to official documentation regarding how the membership is selected and weeded out (if need be). Whatever is in the article is referenced directly to official WP documents. As a straightforward description of how WP is structured, I'd opine that this article (or some version of it) belongs in this article that claims to describe WP. If you find something tendentious in this presentation that seems to you to render it an opinion, rather than being factual, please indicate what should be done, in your opinion. Brews ohare (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The lead section is incorrect, in that it implies that an individual bureaucrat or arbitrator is somehow superior to an individual administrator who is somehow superior to a Wikipedia editor. They're not; in most cases of disagreement, everyone's voice is equal. In an argument about article content or user behaviour, an arbitrator's voice carries no more weight than that of any other editor. The things that matter are personal reputation, experience, persuasiveness, common sense, guidelines and policies - which tend to be acquired separately of formal titles. (Consider User:SandyGeorgia, User:Giano, User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:Δ, among other very influential non-admins.) Now you could say that the ArbCom as a group carries a lot of weight, in the sense that they can make formal decisions that then have to be enforced. But not as individuals. Bureaucrats take actions as individuals, but have minimal power, that being only to decide when an WP:RFA succeeds or not, which are fairly rare decisions nowadays, and even then only when consensus is not clear - it quite often is.
 * Now admins can be said to have a fair bit of power: they can block editors, protect articles, delete articles, interpret consensus, etc. They are not supposed to use these powers with editors or articles with or about whom they have personal disagreements, but that leaves a lot of gray areas. So far all Bureaucrats and Arbs have first been admins, and what individual power they have has come from this.
 * The "open to recall" section is much more complex than "majority vote of the community", standards differ for each admin. By the way, nothing ever gets done by majority vote of the community here (and hardly could, since there are millions of editors, who would wait for half of them to vote?); most things are by "consensus" which is, at best, super-majority of the participants, but usually even more complex than that. --GRuban (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi GRuban: I'd like to go over the points you raise and see if something can be done to make things better. I'll try to identify your points individually:
 * 1. The lead section implies a bureaucrat or arbitrator is superior to an administrator. I suppose that impression is taken because ArbCom is said to have the authority to remove Adminship by instructing a Bureaucrat to do so. I believe that is the case, according to WP documentation that is cited. It also is said in WP documentation that the custom stands that no Admin is to be removed except under a cloud of malfeasance in office, so it is certainly not the case at all that Admins serve "at the pleasure" of ArbCom. And the article also says a Bureaucrat cannot act upon removal unless instructed to do so by ArbCom, and that Bureaucrats have only "technical" duties and are definitely not super-Admins. So it seems to me that the lead section actually says what you say in your first paragraph, leading me to think that somehow this section gets off on the wrong foot, although in fact it is entirely accurate, and agrees with the points you raise about how WP works. What can be done to make this clearer and avoid getting hackles raised?
 * I have added an introductory sentence to point out the narrow focus of this proposed section. Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. Recall is not by "majority vote of the community'. Now I believe the article makes it perfectly clear that Admins serve basically forever and no recall process exists except for blatant abuse (I'd say except for getting ArbCom annoyed in the extreme, which isn't often the case). Something well under a fraction of a percent of Admins have ever been disbarred. The article also says that some 13% of Admins have agreed to place themselves as subject to recall by the community, and maybe that is what you are referring to. It may be that when this 13% elected this option they have placed their own individual stamp upon the circumstances in which they will bow to community pressure, and their departure is a lot less likely than it may appear on the surface. If that is what you are getting at, that discussion can be corrected. What would you say?
 * I have amended this discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3. Bureaucrats and Arbs have power because they are also Admins. I'd say that formally Arbs have authority according to the WP regulations governing Arbs, regardless of their other capacities or past offices. It may be that this formal WP documentation is only de jure, and de facto Arbs depend upon their other hats, but that situation would be undocumented. I doubt that matters that are de facto but are not de jure can be put into a descriptive document like this that is dependent upon explicit de jure WP documentation of authority and rules of conduct, and cannot draw upon testimony or anecdote. Perhaps you can help here?
 * 4.In most cases of disagreement... an arbitrator's voice carries no more weight than that of any other editor. On this point WP documentation gives all the authority to the Admin or Arb, and the editor must cultivate their approval or get blocked or banned. You may entertain the view that the power of Admins and Arbs is applied with great wisdom and restraint (that is not not my observation or experience, but so what?) but this article is not about wisdom and restraint, but about the authority and responsibilities of various agencies, however they are used in practice.
 * 5. The things that matter are personal reputation, experience, persuasiveness, common sense, guidelines and policies These factors undoubtedly play a role, but they are not embodied in the formal description of WP administrative structure responsibilities and authorities. That is, this subject lies outside the scope of this proposal, which is limited to a description of the hierarchy and its formalities, and doesn't pretend to deal with the Zeitgeist.
 * Altogether, I think the article is very much closer to your views than you have credited, and quite possibly minor adjustments would make it entirely acceptable. I hope you will provide some guidance. Brews ohare (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GRuban. Several changes have been made as a result of your comments. If you have more, please suggest them. Brews ohare (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd remove most or all phrases about what things are not, and just describe what they are. For example, replace "This section describes the formalities of Wikipedia administration, and as such does not deal with the Zeitgiest of Wikipedia, things like how reputation, experience, persuasiveness, or common sense may enter into decisions, nor does it describe the numerous policies and guidelines intended to assist decisions made on Wikipedia." with "This section describes the formalities of Wikipedia administration." ; replace "Bureaucrats are not super-admins, and have no authority beyond certain technical activities. Among these, they are empowered to ... " with "Bureaucrats are empowered to ..." and so forth.
 * The abbreviation Arb is short for Arbitrator. I think we can use the full word in the article. Same for Crat.
 * Admin promotion is a combination of Bureaucrat judgment and numerical range - no one has ever been approved below 60% or been failed above 80%. (I can't find the ref at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I saw it recently.)
 * I don't like the phrasing "The contributors or editors of Wikipedia are at the bottom of the Wikipedia hierarchy". That's like saying that the citizens are at the bottom of the [insert your democracy of choice here] hierarchy; it implies a lack of respect. --GRuban (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The beginning of the Administrators section repeats the role of Bureaucrats. "There are no clear-cut criteria" is another of the "what things are not" sections. The words "entire" and "entirely" are redundant (here, as well as in several other places).
 * Clearly improved, though. --GRuban (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

--GRuban (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought these were good suggestions, and have made a number of changes along these lines. Please comment further, and thank you again. Brews ohare (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I had originally removed this because its a rant sourced to Wikipedia. Lets see what others have to say. "Jimmy Wales, ostensibly in a position of ultimate authority" LIES....Moxy (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Moxy: The way Wikipedia is structured, that is, its organizational offices, officers, and their various duties and authorities, are described best in WP sources, as WP itself naturally provides its own basis for determining its own organization. It hardly seems inappropriate for a discussion of this structure to use the documents the organization uses to delineate its own structure.
 * I also find it difficult to understand how this factual and carefully sourced account of something so mundane as the organization of WP can be called a rant. That term is derogatory, and at a minimum requires concrete explanation. Brews ohare (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: As Moxy pointed out, it only uses Wikipedia as a source. These are primary sources and should be used with care and not solely to support text as large as this, using primary sources can also quite easily cause original research issues. Are there any sources independent of Wikipedia to support the majority of this text?  Я ehevkor ✉  15:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rehevkor: As noted above, there is no better source to describe the structure of an organization than the organizing documentation of the organization itself. I believe the sourcing to WP has indeed been done with care, and uses nothing in the way of opinion or conjecture, but only the dry bones of how WP is set up. Brews ohare (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Care perhaps, but without independent sources I would be unable to personally support it's inclusion, the issue of WP:OR is too great (of which there seems to be plenty). There still exists a lot of unsourced material as well as cross-namespace/external links which are shouldn't be there (they should be cited as sources or not used at all).  Я ehevkor ✉  16:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could actually supply detailed examples rather than generalities. The "external links" actually are all links to WP itself, but with complete http addresses instead of internal links . These could be made footnotes, of course. They are used as in-text links where the wording clearly described the content of the link, while footnotes were used where a close wording like that wouldn't work.
 * It would be most helpful if you could point out any WP:OR. As the author of this piece I may not be as sensitive to such matters as you are: my view is that there is not any WP:OR. Brews ohare (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The unsourced sections are all intrinsically problematic by default. I'll give a couple examples of OR, but I'm not going to spend all day picking through because until some non-primary sources are used it won't do much to help the text. "The Wikimedia Foundation or its designated agents also have unlimited authority to impose blocks and bans against IP addresses for pages, topics, or the entire site." Source makes no mention of the Foundations ability to block, and only mentions that they are one of the partied able to impose a ban, rather than the "unlimited authority" mentioned by the text. "Although many attempts have been made to implement a community-based removal of Admins" The source gives only an "example" which cannot support the text alone. I have made my opposition clear, without non-primary sources per WP:PRIMARY I am simply unable to support it's inclusion.  Я ehevkor ✉  17:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your example of the ability of the Foundation to impose bans, but no mention of blocks is quite correct and I've changed that. The assertion that "many attempts" have been made is supported, as you say, by only one example. The statement is supported by other documents on WP such as this one, but it is probably simpler just to delete the word "many", which I have done.
 * However, you state that no corrections in response to your claims of WP:OR will result in your support unless "non-primary sources" are invoked. I hardly think that sourcing WP about simple matters of fact related to its structure, without commentary or opinion, is a matter for concern. The cautions used by WP about using primary sources are not intended to avoid reference to basic documents like the layout of the New York City subway system, nor to basic documents describing WP formal organizational structure. Rather, these cautions are meant to avoid parochialism, "accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event", etc. That parochialism might occur in controversial topics, where there are original primary sources that conflict. Then objectivity can be secured by using overviews of all sides by historians or the like. I hardly think there is a word of controversy in this proposal about WP structure, objectivity is never an issue, and WP:PRIMARY is not violated here. Brews ohare (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base [] material entirely on primary sources." I stand by this.  Я ehevkor ✉  18:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that "Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself". I guess the key phrase here is with caution. This article talk page —in combination with the RFC— should watch over that. - DVdm (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

←outdent DVdm: Thanks for that link to Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself. I guess time will tell whether there is consensus that WP has been used properly in this proposed section as a source about itself. I do think that it has been used as it should be. Brews ohare (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lest we lose sight of the point here in a debate over whether some guideline or policy applies or not, or whether some adjective is appropriate, can it be agreed that some attempt at laying out the organizational structure should be a part of this article on Wikipedia? Brews ohare (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that. Rich Farmbrough, 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Comments. Avoid words like "new" and "presently". I would add that there is now a stale admin removal process. I would also distinguish powers and authority.  Admins have the power to block, but not the authority to ban.  And the power to block is not carte blanche to do so.  In the introduction I would replace the word "administration" with  something else, to avoid confusion with administrators. I would pull all the abbreviations, they don't elucidate the subject - they may have relevance in another article somewhere.  Jimbo's "supreme authority" is to a large extent only effective with the consent of the community these days (which I think is as he wants it), very careful wording should be used - the document you refer to has no policy status. Rich Farmbrough, 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC).


 * I have attempted to implement these suggestions. Please let me know if more has to be done. Brews ohare (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I find it rather astonishing that we are even having this discussion. There would be no chance that this material would survive if it were about any other website.  Let me recall some our our policies.  No original research: "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided."  "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care";  Verifiability: "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question"; Identifying reliable sources:  "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [...] so long as [...] (5) the article is not based primarily on such sources".  The proposed material clearly contravenes these requirements.  We cannot use it.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cusop Dingle: Apparently you do not agree with the above remarks related to using WP as a source about WP. However, disagreement with "Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself" should be based, not upon WP:OR or WP:Primary, but upon specifics about inadequate "caution" in the use of WP for this purpose. Inasmuch as all the statements about WP are dry fact, for example: there are three agencies: Bureaucrats, Administrators and Arbitrators, it is difficult to claim a lack of caution, like injection of opinion or commentary. What would you suggest are problematic uses of WP as a source about WP here? Brews ohare (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not me, but our core policies on verifiability that do not agree with those remarks, as I have just shown. Whether or not the statements are or are not "dry facts", The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) (Not commenting on detailed technical comments below, just on this partial one.) Note that the thing that says that "Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself", is indeed part of the core policy — see wp:CIRCULAR, part of policy Verifiability. Our job, so to speak, is to help making sure on the talk page that the primary sources are cited with caution — which seems to be exactly what you are doing below, so do carry on :-)  - DVdm (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "With caution" is simply not a licence to base the entire section on primary sources, which is specifically stated as unacceptable. "May" in "may be used" does not overturn the "must" in "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question".  The appropriate tone for using primary sources would be in a context such as "According to Wikipedia itself, it ..."  An entire section cannot be written this way.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cusop Dingle and others that the current proposed addition is unacceptable because it uses primary sources only. There's been a lot of discussion about various words in this WP:CIRCULAR sentence:  "Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself,"  The discussion has focused mostly on the words "may be cited with caution".  While these words have some importance, I think the most important words in the sentence are "as a primary source".  Do these words mean that Wikipedia may be used as some kind of special primary source that is granted an exemption from WP:PRIMARY?  No, it means Wikipedia may be used as an ordinary primary source and that the rules of WP:PRIMARY apply for Wikipedia just like they apply for any other primary source.  If you don't agree, follow the link to WP:CIRCULAR and look at the link on "primary source".  That link takes you to WP:PRIMARY.


 * That brings me back to the WP:PRIMARY sentence: "Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources."  While the proposed addition is obviously not an entire article, it is a significant amount of material and thus needs secondary sources to comply with WP:PRIMARY. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Detailed comment "Wikipedia is subject to the Wikimedia Foundation, which is primarily interested in technical functions of its various operations under Wikimedia." is unsourced to any source, reliable or otherwise. The inline url leads to a page stating "The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge" which is not consistent with the primary interest stated in the proposed text.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Detailed comment "Wikipedia is subject to the Wikimedia Foundation, which is primarily interested in technical functions of its various operations under Wikimedia. These operations include thirteen subsidiaries, one of which is Wikipedia. Near the top of the Wikimedia hierarchy are Stewards of the Wikimedia wikis who have complete access to the wiki interface on all Wikimedia wikis, including the ability to change any and all user rights and groups; and the System Administrators or SysOps of the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki who manage and maintain the Wikimedia Foundation servers." Completely unsourced.  In what sense is Wikipedia a "subsidiary" of WMF?  Does this mean it is a wholly-owned body corporate?  What is the Wikimedia hierarchy?  It has a Board of Trustees and an Advisory Board -- what does it mean to say Stewards are "near the top"?  Where is the reliable secondary source for all of this?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Detailed comment "A ban requires "consensus", and is a formal warning without removal of the ability to edit, while a block can be imposed by a single Administrator and prevents editing to some degree, large or small.[9]" Text is inconsistent with the cited source.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Detailed comment "Consensus must surpass a numerical threshold of 85%, but final judgment is one of Bureaucrat discretion. [8]" Text is inconsistent with proposed source, which states "Consensus at RFA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold. As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail".  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Detailed comment "The activities of Administrators or Admins are well described in a how-to guide". Who says this is well-described?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cusop Dingle: You have raised a few points of minor moment where a verbatim quote or the like would drive the points home unequivocally. Possibly there are some readers that would appreciate having such a close reading of the WikiMedia documentation to insure that no glaring errors have occurred in describing the role of the Wikimedia Foundation in the running of Wikipedia. (Of course, there are no grievous misportrayals.)


 * I have attempted here to fill in an obvious omission in the Wikipedia article, namely, how it is organized and who does what. I have made numerous small revisions, and a few corrections of fact, to satisfy responsible reviewers. So far as I can tell, these changes have had no impact on the eventual acceptance of this addition. To meet misplaced flag-waving of WP:OR I also could copy similar text from "secondary sources" to the same effect as my direct quotes from WP. However, in my view, that would not appease these critics who would simply object over further minutiae.


 * I have spent plenty of time here trying to present an acceptable accounting of a very simple matter: the formal organization of WP. So far as I can tell, the best course is to leave the filling of this void to the critics themselves, to put their own shoulders to the wheel and to expend some of their time and grey matter, and they can try to present this matter in a way they find adequate, based upon secondary sources, and settle their own qualms about the subject among themselves.


 * Unfortunately, I do most seriously doubt that any effort actually will be made. Brews ohare (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For an encyclopaedia, accuracy is never "of minor moment". Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Meta comment Cusop's points are mainly valid, but they are not show stoppers. The (a) reason we have a wiki is so that points like this can be fixed with less effort than it takes to discuss them. In terms of citation this is mostly citable from secondary sources, however we should be careful to ensure that we reflect the actuality, as secondary sources are not always accurate. And again these are very much matters for the normal editing process.  Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Note:I would definitely make that "subsidiary projects" although I'm not sure you can define the number exactly, and if this were part of the article I would change that now. Rich Farmbrough, 12:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Rich: Thank you for pointing out that the minor changes that may be needed here could easily be made as normal corrections in a normal editing process. That is not going to happen, of course, because the moment this proposal is placed in the article it will again be reverted. It's time for those who challenge this proposal either to 'fess up that they will nit-pick any such proposal to death, or to do some work themselves to make a contribution they can live with. Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." (my italics) If satisfactory sources cannot be found, then the material is simply not encyclopedic.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cusop Dingle: In your view, because there is no secondary source (at least that I could find) that mentions Bureaucrats, one cannot make the statement that this class exists on WP by citing (for example) WP:Bureaucrats or perhaps some other WP reference to Bureaucrats? Likewise, one cannot cite WP to support the observation that there are elections for ArbCom members? And so forth? That is, simple facts about WP cannot be presented, a direct contradiction of DVdm's observation that "Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself." Clearly, WP:Primary is meant to avoid "sourcing" controversial claims, not to serve as a gag order, and so far as I can see, there are no such problems with controversial topics in this proposal. You now have introduced WP:NPOV as another objection, and yet you have cited no instance of a failure of neutrality. There is no such lack of neutrality in this proposal. At most, what has been turned up by comments so far are some (minor) factual inaccuracies and awkward phrasings that have been corrected, and that normal editing of the published paragraphs would correct through normal editing. Brews ohare (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There obviously cannot be "significant viewpoints" that present a variety of views upon simple facts like "Wikipedia is a project owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation". Brews ohare (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See also User talk:Brews ohare/Wikipedia: Formal organization.