Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Global bans

About en.wp bans
I'd like to clarify some history after reading Marshallsumter's contribution: the global bans on meta are not like the crazy bans on the English Wikipedia. Most people who get involved in things on meta tend to be just as aware of the dysfunction on en.wp as most of us here are.

I guess I'm pretty much the last surviving member from the early days who is still active and interested, so I'll give a bit of history: in 2006 when this project came to be, the ugly side of the WP system had just started to become apparent. We (like most other sister projects) wanted to make it clear that falling afoul of the WP inner circle should not be a barrier to participation here. We also tried to come up with experimental alternatives (such as the mentorship system) that we hoped might prove to be good examples that en.wp might adopt. It didn't work out that way, or at least hasn't yet.

I doubt that there will be very many people "globally banned" in the future. The people who get involved on meta tend to be "AGF extremists". The en.wp crowd generally don't care about anything outside their circle, so I doubt they'll be a disproportionate influence. --SB_Johnny talk 20:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good to know, and I appreciate very much your words and effort here. When I was reading the discussion at meta I noticed that en.WP inner circle apparently made a 'gang'-like effort to quell an effort at meta which by shear numbers was successful. I am happy to add that the efforts here with those that came over was both encouraging and good to have happen. Ironically, their headstrong efforts have been used constructively. My serious concern with the global ban is that this may cause en.WP to simply 'take over' all the other projects to everyone's loss.
 * I noticed that we have some vandals apparently going from project to project causing disruption, and in such individual cases the 'global ban' concept is useful. But, like all such tools, it can be used to serve those who would misuse it the most. This is why I believe our own custodians and those above them such as yourself are our first and best line of defense not only with individual vandals but with possible 'gang'-like efforts where reason fails to sway. I would also like to add that I believe this presents WV with a positive opportunity as a resource of higher learning to perhaps add where possible some additional guidance should it be needed. I very much like the fact 'the people who get involved on meta tend to be "AGF extremists".' This is a good thing. Marshallsumter 20:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This review is to provide some additional guidance where possible, in light of the global bans proposal at Meta. I think custodian consensus was guidance from the community is needed on this issue. I thought I would get the ball rolling, since there was talk of talking about it and no action yet. -- dark lama  21:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea of meta consisting of "AGF extremists" is old. It used to be true. It's changed. I ran into many examples of the opposite of AGF. To give an example, in the case of Abigor, conditions were set up where an unblock of Abigor would be totally safe. The community was divided, with what was rather obviously a cabal from one of the 'pedias dominating; if votes from users affiliated with that 'pedia were deprecated, there was a majority for unblock under controlled conditions. But that was disregarded, and the close was to maintain the block, in spite of damage to legitimate work. It's become about punishment (and sometimes, maybe, something even uglier). --Abd 22:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts about resolutions
There probably four separate issues here where we could come up with opposing alternatives. As I mentioned in my comments, at this point there's certainly nothing we can do to prevent someone from reporting it at meta. --SB_Johnny talk 10:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. If somebody has a concern about an account that is apparently being used to circumvent a global ban, should they report it to RCA? Should they simply report it to the stewards on meta? Should they report it on another forum?
 * 2. If we're reasonably sure that an account is being used to circumvent a global ban, should we block it?
 * 3. If the "appeals" section of the meta policy is approved, where and how should we hold a discussion about whether an appeal should be made? (CR? RCA? Colloquium? Should the sitenotice be used?)
 * 4. If we make an appeal and it is declined, should we simply detach the account from the unified login, which would override the global lock?
 * 1. Meta has jurisdiction over global bans and SUL accounts, we don't. We have no control over what users do elsewhere. The practical issue is only a local sock or detached account, with the user allegedly being the globally banned user. If a local account is being disruptive, i.e., here, then the fact of a global ban may be relevant, but the legitimate cause of action is not the global ban, it is local disruption. Users may report global ban evasion here, but the result should be careful attention, not a block. Stewards may act if necessary, and they have access to checkuser information as well.
 * 2. Not on that basis. We become enforcers for an outside court, essentially, but that court has its own enforcers. Practically, these outside bans are sometimes enforced and sometimes not. History shows that local enforcement can be disruptive, in itself, if a local account has positive contributions. Wikiversity as a refuge allowing positive contributions from users banned elsewhere is extremely important, it provides a positive outlet for editors banned elsewhere, which, in fact, acts to protect other wikis. Where, in spite of a less contentious environment, users are unable to maintain policy compliance here as well, then we cannot maintain this for them, but we've shown extreme reluctance to truly ban permanently. There are only a couple of examples, and my sense is that if these users were to agree to reasonable behavioral standards, we'd allow them back. The real issue, then, is enforcing compliance; that takes custodians willing to respond, which has sometimes been missing. This can be fixed.
 * 3. This is a red herring. We should decide about our own wiki, not others and not about SULs. We should decide based on our own needs and policies. We have no "representative" to meta (we could, do we want to hold an election? How? It could be done, and, heh!, election methods are my strongest field of expertise.) What happens is that individuals who also edit here have gone to meta and commented there. Nobody at this point has the right to "represent" Wikiversity, to speak for *us,* except colloquially and informally. If one of us thinks a global ban, represented by a global lock, is inappropriate, they can go to meta and support unlocking. I've done that, and I was giving my own opinion, and unlock have been granted, or not.
 * 4. We have, deciding to allow an editor to edit, delinked the SUL account, based on this being cleaner and safer. It makes that account stand out in the SUL display as not linked. Any steward who thinks that the WMF family is being harmed may pop in and locally block, but, shall we say, they better have a good reason, because, historically, this has caused massive disruption. However, this is what Pathoschild did with all Thekohser accounts, coupled with delinking, specifically to allow local wikis to decide -- any admin could then unblock, and quite a few did. Mike.lifeguard then reinstated the global lock, defeating all those local actions, and we are not privy to what discussions were behind that, he refused to say. I think that it was decided that it was better to require a 'crat decision, but this has never been formalized. Mike.lifeguard resigned immediately when Wikibooks decided to delink. He claimed there was no connection, though.
 * Of course anyone can complain at meta. Stewards are generally trusted to make sane decisions. Most are quite aware of the hazards of stepping on local toes. They will doubtless lock an SUL account, if there is a formal global ban (that's only the case with Poetlister and one other totally noncontroversial user), they did this when it was believed -- incorrectly -- that S Larctia was Poetlister. What I don't know is if they can lock an isolated account that has not been globally linked. I'm sure that they cannot lock a detached account, i.e., there is an SUL, but the local account is detatched. They would have to descend from Olympus and locally block. We would then have the choice of overturning that local block, or not. I think our policy prohibits wheel-warring with a steward. By policy, then, we'd need to show local consensus to reverse a steward decision.
 * Our policy, even though labelled a proposed policy, exists for very good reasons, and it protects us from needing to make any decision at all based on outside considerations. I do not want to propose an absolute rule that says *never.* However, all exceptions that I can think of would also justify steward intervention, and they have the tools and power and are not subject to our local consensus and policies, though they are advised to respect them where possible. We should keep our local business simple. It's far cleaner. --Abd 15:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion between Thenub314 and Abd

 * [removed my comments, wrong place for them.] Thenub314 21:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The original comments from Thenub314 may be read at, in the collapse box. My comments should be read in that context. --Abd 19:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If possible, we should have community consensus on whether or not to enforce global bans, as a matter of policy. If we don't, what then happens is that they are enforced based on the personal opinions of the custodian, not our community consensus. Sure, we can then have a discussion, but if policy is clear, such a discussion may not be necessary. Ban discussions are typically messy except in obvious cases, i.e., there is clearly a local problem from the user. Our policy, as it's been stated for years in the "proposed policy," states clearly that users are not to be blocked based on behavior elsewhere. If this is not the case, if bans declared elsewhere are to be locally enforced, by local custodians, then the proposed policy should be changed. And if they are not to be locally enforced, this still allows a steward to enforce, with all that this implies. Our custodians, then, don't jump into the firing line, either way. Present situation: one custodian enforced the global ban, another enforced the local policy, unblocking. Neither one found clear local consensus first. That situation is a set-up for conflict, from not having a clearly established policy.
 * Personally, if global bans are to be enforced, and because I know that it is possible to obtain such bans based on participation bias at meta, I'm less likely to participate here, and to encourage others to do so, it would feel like building a house on sand. I'm fully responsible for what I do here, as are others, and what I've done elsewhere has been based on my assessment of the needs of other wikis, and my own goals there, not the purposes and goals of Wikiversity. WV has been a safe place, mostly. I see that as possibly being about to change.
 * I'll be clear about one thing: unless policy clearly sets limits, a local consensus would be required to reverse a local block by a steward. A WMF-ordered block would not be reversible even with local consensus, the WMF owns the wiki. However, it has an implied contract with us, to operate it. If the WMF withdraws from that, we may choose to continue here or not. A true local consensus would have the power to fork. So far, I've seen nothing from the WMF even remotely indicating that this would be necessary. I'm just delineating the boundaries here. --Abd 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thenub314 responded with further thoughts on the topic. I think these are important in terms of understanding his position. His claim that this was not the place for the comments may be technically correct, in a process sense, but, then, what place would be appropriate? We are discussing the ban issue. --Abd 19:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I was just trying to come up with how to phrase the things we can vote on. How should we word the alternatives, etc. --SB_Johnny talk 20:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. (If I had a blushing emoticon I might user it here) Thenub314 20:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no global ban policy at meta, and so deciding how we will react to an imaginary policy is premature. However, there are global bans, which have been done ad-hoc. We should really decide policy as it applies to the immediate issue, which is only, practically speaking, at this point, the global ban of Poetlister. The Poetlister situation itself should not be decided here, since this is not a CR on Poetlister. However, policy issues are involved, our current policy seems to prohibit blocking a user who isn't being disruptive here, and this has long been understood. Is there a "global ban" exception? Global bans have been declared and enforced globally through locks, and sometimes through local blocks implemented by stewards, but in no case where there was local challenge to this did the global ban stand as applying to Wikiversity. Is this now to be changed? Below, I start to examine the arguments and positions expressed in this CR, together with a brief look at the experience of those commenting, so that we may start to understand our community's position on this, before coming up with specific resolutions. The resolutions should be designed to be most likely to find consensus, otherwise we will burn out the community, which can tire of commenting and voting, over and over. --Abd 15:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You still haven't had time to read my essay yet, have you ? -- Simone 20:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing arguments

 * This section will start with attributed arguments. It will be refactored to remove attribution.


 * Thenub314. If a decision at meta was made with announcement here and participation by members of our community, we should respect the meta decision, at least at first. We should not ever require a custodian to take any specific action. A local discussion may be closed, with unblock, if appropriate.
 * SB_Johnny We cannot circumvent a global ban, but we may be able to ask for unban. Local users may report ban violations at meta.
 * Marshallsumter WV should be kept as independent as possible, decisions about users should be based on user behavior here.
 * Bilby Global bans are necessary because without them, a person may move from wiki to wiki, replicating damage. The wider community may be damaged by the actions of a user here. Supports enforcing global bans if there was a "genuine community discussion" on meta.
 * AbdGlobal bans are decided at meta re perceived overall welfare of the global community. Wikiversity custodians are only responsible for what happens on Wikiversity. Generally, local wikis may bypass "global consensus," as expressed at meta. Because global bans are decided at meta, they should be enforced through stewards elected at meta. Local decisions should be based on local policies, and enforced through locally trusted servants. Individuals may be disruptive in one context and cooperative in another.
 * Ottava Rima It is the job of our custodians to enforce global bans.
 * S Larctia Custodians should not support users who have disrupted more than one WMF project.
 * Jtneill Local decisions should not be based on activities elsewhere, users should have a clean slate here. Global ban enforcement is a steward role.
 * Thekohser "The independence of the Wikiversity community and process should come before a blind fealty to matters that happen on Meta."
 * Steven Walling Stewards enforce global bans. Local socks are a judgment call for local sysops, pursuant to community consensus and the needs of the project.
 * Gravitoweak Global bans are "impossible," leading to Whack-a-mole games.


 * KYPark "the global ban in a way is an analogy to such terrorism as scapegoating, Inquisition, excommunication, and [bullying].


 * Ebe123 No custodian should have anything to do with global bans. Socks may be reported at meta.

Reviewing contributors
In understanding arguments and positions in a CR, and how these are to be applied to make a community decision, it can be important to understand the experience of the contributors. This section is for that. Errors here should be corrected and the corrections signed. Note: all users have the right to contribute, no matter what their history.--Abd 14:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing positions
The issue before Wikiversity is whether or how to enforce global bans here. This section will review the preliminary positions of contributors on this issue, as expressed in the CR. The goal is to understand what consensus may be forming, or to understand lack of consensus, to guide us in moving forward and determining if we are ready to poll on some decision, which might create or change policy. I will summarize positions here. However, I ask any contributor whose position I have incorrectly summarized to correct the error and sign the entry as corrected. After each comment I place an evaluation on the issue of default blocking of globally banned users, +1 being support for automatic respect for meta-declared bans, 0 being neutral or unclear, and -1 being opposition. --Abd 15:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Thenub314. Block any globally banned user who edits here, if Wikiversity was invited to comment in a meta ban decision and the decision was announced here. Then a local custodian, closing a discussion of the user, may unblock. +1
 * 2) SB_Johnny We cannot circumvent a global ban, but we may be able to ask for unban. Local users may report ban violations at meta. Sees reasons in favor of local blocking and against. 0
 * 3) Marshallsumter Opposes local enforcement of global bans. -1
 * 4) Bilby "block if someone is globally banned through a genuine community disccusion on Meta and it is clear that they are editing through the ban, and accept a ["strong"] community consensus to unblock if that's what later emerges." +1
 * 5) Abd Block locally only for local policy violations, leave meta ban enforcement to stewards. -1
 * 6) Ottava Rima It is the job of our custodians to enforce global bans. +1
 * 7) S Larctia Global bans should be enforced locally. +1
 * 8) Jtneill Local decisions should not be based on activities elsewhere, users should have a clean slate here. Global ban enforcement is a steward role. -1
 * 9) Thekohser "The independence of the Wikiversity community and process should come before a blind fealty to matters that happen on Meta." -1
 * 10) Steven Walling Stewards enforce global bans. Local socks are a judgment call for local sysops, pursuant to community consensus and the needs of the project. -1
 * 11) Gravitoweak Global bans are "impossible," leading to Whack-a-mole games. -1
 * 12) KYPark Considers global bans dangerous, wishes for custodians to "keep global bans from abuses and misuses." -1
 * 13) Ebe123 No custodian should have anything to do with global bans. Socks may be reported at meta. -1
 * Unsigned entries above, at this point, are my summaries. --Abd 16:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Overall analysis by Abd

 * Out of 13 contributions, and without considering the "experience" factor, I see 4 supports for automatic blocking as a default, 6 opposing that, 1 neutral (SBJ). However, the position of Steven Walling might be considered ambiguous. I've classified Walling's position as negative because he is, in fact, leaving the matter up to sysops pursuing community consensus and needs, which would presumably include respecting local policy and consensus from the past. He does consider blocking of identified socks to be "wise," but is also explicit that this is up to local custodians and the local community. He is not taking the position that a "strong community consensus" must exist to allow unblocking, and considers blocking/unblocking (and, presumably, delinking to bypass a lock) a matter of local discretion. Hence my classification at this point. Walling is really ratifying the status quo, long-standing tradition. However, if I shift Walling to neutral, this would give us 4/5/2. --Abd 16:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In discussions below, some seem to think I'm proposing a conclusion here. No, not yet. (What conclusion? There is no conclusion above, just data.)
 * The analysis above was done with respect to "automatic blocking" because the current problem is over whether or not global bans should be enforced by local sysops absent local misbehavior. I acted in the instant case based on my understanding of policy, and it was claimed that that was contrary to consensus. Is that true? That's the question I've asked myself and I have only one element in an answer above. A more complete answer will address the arguments (and for that, it doesn't matter who made the arguments) and the experience of the users (i.e., if we factor for experience, including prior participation here, does this reveal some kind of bias among those not familiar with Wikiversity?). This could be similar to deprecating SPA !votes in a Wikipedia AfD, common practice. --Abd 21:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This analysis seems relatively biased, and boils everything down to a vote. Thenub314 16:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A judgment of bias may appear in the mind of someone with bias opposite to the judged bias of the one judged. "Seems," then, is correct. To move beyond this, we'd need to look at details.


 * First question: are there any errors in the individual summaries, or errors in the analysis, i.e., miscounting, whatever, where a material fact is not disclosed? I'll say this: I was careful to be as neutral as possible, without tossing aside what I can see. Given that this issue has torn Wikiversity apart previously, that a "global ban" declared and enforced here by Jimbo led to his loss of Founder tools, in a discussion that was running 2:1 at meta against a proposal to remove them, which then flipped when Jimbo similarly interfered at Commons, to 4:1 for removal, with over 500 votes, this is a topic on which hardly any knowledgeable Wikiversity user will be completely neutral. It damned near wrecked this place, heavily impacted the growth of Wikiversity, experienced users left and retired or cut way back on contributions, so ... let's be careful here, and avoid knee-jerk responses, and seek genuine consensus. Okay? --Abd 17:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thenub314. The quality of arguments is more important than numerical factors. Gravitoweak, KYPark, Thekohser, Abd, S Larctia, Ottava Rima and Marshallsumter are all banned on Wikipedia, and their opinions should be discounted. --Xijky 16:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? They're not globally banned. --SB_Johnny talk 02:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My analysis is my analysis, nothing more, nothing less. There is a section above for listing arguments. I do not believe that any decision should be made exclusively by vote; however, and our policies do suggest decision based on strength of arguments. If someone believes that my analysis is biased (whose isn't?), then they are completely welcome to put up their own analysis. Indeed, I'm changing the title of this subsection to "Overall analysis by Abd."
 * Above, as well, there is a section on the experience of contributors, intended to note such things as contribution counts, status here and on other projects, etc. I found the numbers of interest, that's all. They do not and should not control our next step, which would be deriving some sane possible resolutions. The information present in the CR can allow us to do that, but if anyone thinks that the result will just pop out by reading the CR itself, without any analysis, well, they will be totally vulnerable to their own bias, which will perform the "analysis" for them. I found that my understanding shifted by writing this, I have a better sense of what community consensus is likely to be when this shakes out, and I've not completed the process. What I wrote above, in this section on "positions," was really only done first because it was the easiest task.
 * Xijky's comment is opposite to Wikiversity consensus. We have a user indef blocked here who is an administrator on Wikipedia. So? However, Kijky has incorrectly identified users banned on Wikipedia. Gravitoweak and KYPark are not even blocked there. Xijky has low contributions globally, including en.wiki, compared to the users he'd dismiss. He's welcome here, to build resources. And he's welcome to give his opinion, and to have his arguments considered, but that's about it. --Abd 17:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Look the whole analysis from word one is flawed, it tries to make it a single issue problem (block/not block) and reduces this one issue to a vote. You clearly see this as a issue in which your personally involved and that your future ability to edit rides on the outcome of this discussion.  Take a look at the last few sentences here, wouldn't it be a wise to abstain from producing the summary analysis of this particular conversation, given that your so involved in the outcome of the discussion? Thenub314 20:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is frustrating. That would be true if some claim were being made that a conclusion should be based on the numbers. In fact, communities intelligently make decisions based on multiple analyses from different points of view. I am not "producing the summary analysis of this particular conversation," I am producing a summary analysis. One analysis, mine. I will also produce some others, by the way, based on arguments and based on experience of those commenting. And I'm seeing it attacked based on alleged bias, without any attempt to explain how the bias actually flaws the analysis. This is ad hominem dismissal of a set of observations.
 * But I'm glad about one thing: Thenub has pointed to a problem with the idea of enforcing global bans. Sure, it's a risk to me, and I could show exactly how, documenting situations at meta, including my own, but that would require examining outside activities. We should make our decisions here based on the welfare of this wiki, which includes and covers the individual welfare of all members of the community. This is not Wikipedia, focused on product, hang the community. For us, education is our product and "educational materials" are a means, but participation here is also part of our product. Learning by doing. --Abd 20:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You seemed to feel I did not describe the actual flaws in the analysis, but that was the intention of my first sentence. Thenub314 21:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Reminder
Statements aren't votes. We aren't voting because we haven't come up with anything to vote on. We haven't come up with anything to vote on in part because the earlier attempt to come up with something was buried under walls of text. --SB_Johnny talk 21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need that reminder, SBJ. Nobody here has claimed that there is a vote going on. I merely made one paragraph of analysis that reported numbers, in a section that reported "position" on the most urgent issue before us, as a piece of an overall analysis aimed toward seeking understanding of the positions expressed, precisely in order to make intelligent proposals about resolutions to vote on. --Abd 22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC) original post continued into "wall of text" issue, now within collapse. --Abd 19:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

collapsed by Abd 19:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC) "Walls of text" is your method of dismissing careful argument and consideration of evidence, and disrespecting, in Wikipedian fashion, the work that went into writing that. I'd suggest stopping it, this is Wikiversity. Yes, there is argument that's unnecessary, such as most of that discussion following my analysis in this section. And your reminder. --Abd 22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC) (e.g. this is one paragraph - I edited/previewed 4 times before posting, and I still feel I could improve it, but I'll hit "Save" now because I've tried to read it through from the perspective of a potential reader, and I feel it's probably pretty clear at this point...) Begoon 13:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase wall of text was not being applied to the analysis above, but to the edits by you and me on Nov 17/18th. That was why I redacted some comments, as I could see they were getting in the way of progress. Thenub314 00:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Geez, I knew that. The "careful argument" was in specific response to SB Johnny's questions, and to your remarks as well (later removed by you, not a great thing to do, in fact, I probably should have reverted you, since I'd responded. I think I'll fix that, putting your comments and my response to you in collapse, which should accomplish what you desired without whacking my responses as to context). There were 4 questions, and each one got a paragraph of response. Not a wall of text. If you defocus, and don't care about the issues, sure. Now, with a lot of work, I could refactor that to make it more pleasing to the eye. Is it worth that work for discussion? Obviously, I don't think so. I already spent way too much time writing it. --Abd 02:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I took my comments out again, I prefer they remained that way. Thenub314 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored the collapse, and have placed a reference to the original discussion so that my response there can be read in context. --Abd 19:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was asking if those were the questions to be considered, that's all. --SB_Johnny talk 02:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, got that. However, what is being examined is what the present discussion reveals about consensus as it stands. I'd assume that no decision would be final until there is some polling, probably. However, answers depend on questions asked, and that's why, in standard parliamentary procedure, it takes a vote to ask a question, and the question may be amended, which also takes a vote.... To avoid cumbersome process, I'm doing a preliminary analysis, which isn't complete. ---Abd
 * I realize, "Is refactoring to make discussion more pleasing to the eye worth the work", may be intended as a rhetorical question, but I think the question is worth answering anyways. Do you think understanding, acknowledgment, and consideration of your arguments are important? If the answer is yes, I think time is well spent refactoring comments because people are more likely to acknowledge and consider arguments they can understand. If the answer is no, I think time shouldn't be spent at all presenting any form of argument, because people are limited in their ability and capability to acknowledge and consider arguments not understood. -- dark lama  08:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a rhetorical question, it's a real question, and the answer depends on context. In preliminary discussion, it is often not worth the effort. It should be understood that I might spent two hours writing something here, more time than I can really afford. I already do a lot of editing as part of that two hours. I do not just post raw text, normally. I do not expect everyone to read all that I write. What I've found, in fact, is that comprehension is not necessarily improved by addiitional time spent editing, and much of the complaint about "walls of text" comes from people who will reject what is being said no matter how briefly it's expressed. Sure, I can design polemic, but preliminary discussion shouldn't be polemic. (Polemic must be brief, typically.) --Abd 19:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's common sense. Communication (particularly on a somewhat impersonal medium such as this) is about tailoring your contributions to your desired audience. If one wishes one's contributions to be understood and considered, then presenting them in a manner as easy to assimilate and comprehend as possible seems essential. It feels to me like the polite way to do it, too. Nothing, of course, forces one to communicate this way. But equally, nothing forces the reader to invest the effort which the writer did not. When deciding whether or not to invest the effort, it strikes me that it's best to assume the reader is as busy as you are, and surely the person making the point is best placed to fashion it into something easily digestible.


 * Welcome to Wikiversity, Begoon. Writing can have different functions. Part of the Wikiversity model is "learning by doing," and I personally learn through writing. You can't tell how much time I put into editing, nor how many times I hit "Preview" before saving the edit, just from looking at the product. Let me say that it's often a lot. Further, I often incorporate into my comments a lot of research, research which gave me the background from which my thoughts have arisen. The question is always how much to include. Because I'm actually seeking consensus, in preliminary discussion, which is what we are about here, I tend toward inclusion, i.e, more extensive comment. Later, you'll see, my comments can become almost laconic. Now, if it takes me three hours to research and write a comment here -- and that can easily be the case -- would you think that I must necessarily put in another three to six hours "boiling it down" for maximum impact? Yes, that's exactly what I do when writing polemic, but not when I'm forming my understandings as a shared process. Polemic can inhibit consensus formation. By the way, I've been a professional writer and editor, plus having way too much wiki experience. What was I thinking, I must have been drinking. (Except I don't drink.) --Abd 20:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless - your comment "...just from looking at the product" goes pretty much to the heart of it. All your readers can do is "look at the product", because that's all they are presented with, so, regardless of the time spent creating it, it is what it is. Just my humble opinion. :) Begoon 01:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How they read it may depend on the interest with which they approach it. Transient discussion may be of relatively low interest. Bottom line, the question is how far to invest resources in a discussion. In order of increasing difficulty, there is simple discussion, writing a tome, and writing polemic. Some people seem to imagine that writing polemic is easier than writing a tome, because it's shorter. That disregards the process, and it only is true if a writer is intimately familiar with the topic, essentially has the tome in his or her head already. --Abd 19:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "How they read it may depend on the interest with which they approach it." - Indeed. But, all other things being equal, making discussion clear and concise is generally more useful, and more likely to "pique" that interest. I've been known to generate the odd "wall of text" myself. Generally, though, I regret doing that when I do it, and I do try not to - for 3 reasons I can think of (off the top of my head):
 * I want my stuff to be read.
 * The thought processes involved in making my point cogent for others often help in my own understanding, too.
 * I want co-operation and transparency. I do not wish for a situation where it could possibly appear in any way that something I said was "hidden" in a "wall of text" most people did not read, and then later assumed to have been stated "without objection".  (could happen, you know...) 
 * Obviously, everyone makes their own decisions, and has their own style, and, as you point out you have lots of experience - so maybe you feel the "tldr" style works well for whatever it is you try to achieve. I'm just offering an additional perspective - from my experience. Okay? Begoon 00:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)