I've just come across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Community_sanction
I think this is a pretty awful idea. This is an extrapolation of the concept of a community ban that has no basis in logic. The concept behind a "community ban" is not "rough consensus", as shown by an 80% vote or whatever exists nowadays, but unanimity among admins -- not one admin out of >1000 being prepared to unblock you. People seem to have got hold of the idea that a "rough consensus" is good enough here. It isn't. An ArbCom case is needed when there isn't unanimity among the community.
So much for consensus leading to "community bans". This is made ten times worse, however, with the introduction of "community sanctions" as part of official policy. This kind of thing may happen -- an admin might say to a user "keep away from Scientology articles, or I'll take you to ArbCom", and this (especially with the problem user's assent) would have the same effect. However, as a formalised process it is awful. It lends itself to people behaving without sufficient oversight or rigidity of purpose and it will be abused and open our dispute resolution process to even more criticism (some of which really is deserved).
This is not to say that the concept is totally flawed -- I have outlined above how the same effects can be had on a less formal level without this policy, declared as such without sufficient reasoning or indeed any justification from a public discussion (correct me if I'm wrong...).
On Nov 17, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Sam Korn wrote:
I've just come across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Community_sanction
I think this is a pretty awful idea. This is an extrapolation of the concept of a community ban that has no basis in logic. The concept behind a "community ban" is not "rough consensus", as shown by an 80% vote or whatever exists nowadays, but unanimity among admins -- not one admin out of >1000 being prepared to unblock you. People seem to have got hold of the idea that a "rough consensus" is good enough here. It isn't. An ArbCom case is needed when there isn't unanimity among the community.
So much for consensus leading to "community bans". This is made ten times worse, however, with the introduction of "community sanctions" as part of official policy. This kind of thing may happen -- an admin might say to a user "keep away from Scientology articles, or I'll take you to ArbCom", and this (especially with the problem user's assent) would have the same effect. However, as a formalised process it is awful. It lends itself to people behaving without sufficient oversight or rigidity of purpose and it will be abused and open our dispute resolution process to even more criticism (some of which really is deserved).
This is not to say that the concept is totally flawed -- I have outlined above how the same effects can be had on a less formal level without this policy, declared as such without sufficient reasoning or indeed any justification from a public discussion (correct me if I'm wrong...).
-- Sam
My initial reaction is positive.
Fred
Sam Korn wrote:
I've just come across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Community_sanction
I think this is a pretty awful idea. This is an extrapolation of the concept of a community ban that has no basis in logic. The concept behind a "community ban" is not "rough consensus", as shown by an 80% vote or whatever exists nowadays, but unanimity among admins -- not one admin out of >1000 being prepared to unblock you. People seem to have got hold of the idea that a "rough consensus" is good enough here. It isn't. An ArbCom case is needed when there isn't unanimity among the community.
So much for consensus leading to "community bans". This is made ten times worse, however, with the introduction of "community sanctions" as part of official policy. This kind of thing may happen -- an admin might say to a user "keep away from Scientology articles, or I'll take you to ArbCom", and this (especially with the problem user's assent) would have the same effect. However, as a formalised process it is awful. It lends itself to people behaving without sufficient oversight or rigidity of purpose and it will be abused and open our dispute resolution process to even more criticism (some of which really is deserved).
This is not to say that the concept is totally flawed -- I have outlined above how the same effects can be had on a less formal level without this policy, declared as such without sufficient reasoning or indeed any justification from a public discussion (correct me if I'm wrong...).
Sam
Sam,
I have no problem with changing the tag and discussing if their are concerns.
Previously, it has been discussed on both AN/I and AN and other places. And more importantly they were being done and logged at the community probation page. I waited until we had 3 done before I changed the name as suggested and began moving it toward policy. If you think it needs more discussion, fine, but can we do it on the talk page of the policy as well as here. Many editors and admins do not follow this discussion list.
Several important points. These are intended to be temporary not permanent sanctions. They can be appealed to other Admin, Arbitration Committee and Jimbo. And since Administrators are not cops that are required to enforce sanctions, these sanctions can be ignored by admins if they are not working or making the situation worse. If there is disagreement in the community before or after the sanction is given then they will be appealed to ArbCom. Does this deal with your concerns about the community handling the matter instead of ArbCom?
I think that the Arbitration Committee should handle situations that the community can not deal with on their own. So far that has been the opinion of most active admins and experienced editor. I think that the practice should be written down so that admins know to log the sanctions and can benefit from the prior experience of admins that have done them. This is a wiki so of course changes in wording to better reflect community consensus are expected.
Sydney Poore aka FloNight aka Poore5
Hi Sydney.
Let me summarise my objection to this: codification. It is absolutely acceptable that the "community" should be able to impose specific measures. However, I find it absolutely unnecessary that this should be written down as explicit policy. It can be done by saying "I have this hold over you: I won't take it further if you desist in your behaviour". That is all that needs to be said here, and it doesn't need to be written down in an explicit policy.
On 11/17/06, Sydney Poore aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
Previously, it has been discussed on both AN/I and AN and other places. And more importantly they were being done and logged at the community probation page. I waited until we had 3 done before I changed the name as suggested and began moving it toward policy. If you think it needs more discussion, fine, but can we do it on the talk page of the policy as well as here. Many editors and admins do not follow this discussion list.
I prefer to start debates here, so it's possible to get an over-arching opinion, rather than a closely defined one that is always the result of talking on a talk page. Most of the editors whose opinions I think are most valuable contribute to this list regularly; this is not to put down those who don't contribute to the list, merely to say that, generally and by no means exclusively, the best editors do use this list.
Several important points. These are intended to be temporary not permanent sanctions. They can be appealed to other Admin, Arbitration Committee and Jimbo. And since Administrators are not cops that are required to enforce sanctions, these sanctions can be ignored by admins if they are not working or making the situation worse. If there is disagreement in the community before or after the sanction is given then they will be appealed to ArbCom. Does this deal with your concerns about the community handling the matter instead of ArbCom?
My concern is not with "the community" dealing with a problem. Of course, the idea of "the community" dealing with anything is extremely remote. Far more likely is a few editors making a decision. I think it is extremely unprofitable for such an ill-defined entity to impose very rigid and structured prohibitions. They can be agreed with a user with one admin making suggestions. A ban is a nice, clean remedy. More complicated sanctions are not going to work when imposed by "the community".
I think that the Arbitration Committee should handle situations that the community can not deal with on their own.
I absolutely agree.
I think that the practice
should be written down so that admins know to log the sanctions and can benefit from the prior experience of admins that have done them.
These kinds of things should not be done by inexperienced admins who do not have the "instincts" to manage the situation. They should only be done by admins who really know the ropes and have proven judgement. They should not need these instructions to help them.
Hi Sydney.
Let me summarise my objection to this: codification. It is absolutely acceptable that the "community" should be able to impose specific measures. However, I find it absolutely unnecessary that this should be written down as explicit policy. It can be done by saying "I have this hold over you: I won't take it further if you desist in your behaviour". That is all that needs to be said here, and it doesn't need to be written down in an explicit policy.
On 11/17/06, Sydney Poore aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
Previously, it has been discussed on both AN/I and AN and other places. And more importantly they were being done and logged at the community probation page. I waited until we had 3 done before I changed the name as suggested and began moving it toward policy. If you think it needs more discussion, fine, but can we do it on the talk page of the policy as well as here. Many editors and admins do not follow this discussion list.
I prefer to start debates here, so it's possible to get an over-arching opinion, rather than a closely defined one that is always the result of talking on a talk page. Most of the editors whose opinions I think are most valuable contribute to this list regularly; this is not to put down those who don't contribute to the list, merely to say that, generally and by no means exclusively, the best editors do use this list.
Several important points. These are intended to be temporary not permanent sanctions. They can be appealed to other Admin, Arbitration Committee and Jimbo. And since Administrators are not cops that are required to enforce sanctions, these sanctions can be ignored by admins if they are not working or making the situation worse. If there is disagreement in the community before or after the sanction is given then they will be appealed to ArbCom. Does this deal with your concerns about the community handling the matter instead of ArbCom?
My concern is not with "the community" dealing with a problem. Of course, the idea of "the community" dealing with anything is extremely remote. Far more likely is a few editors making a decision. I think it is extremely unprofitable for such an ill-defined entity to impose very rigid and structured prohibitions. They can be agreed with a user with one admin making suggestions. A ban is a nice, clean remedy. More complicated sanctions are not going to work when imposed by "the community".
I think that the Arbitration Committee should handle situations that the community can not deal with on their own.
I absolutely agree.
I think that the practice
should be written down so that admins know to log the sanctions and can benefit from the prior experience of admins that have done them.
These kinds of things should not be done by inexperienced admins who do not have the "instincts" to manage the situation. They should only be done by admins who really know the ropes and have proven judgement. They should not need these instructions to help them.
/quote>
Agree with your concerns about inexperienced admins. The point of this policy is to make sure that more experienced admins get involved by requiring discussion on AN or AN/I. Some ideas for community sanctions have been dismissed when presented. Currently blocks and user talk page protection are used with little oversight by more experienced admins to try and deal with problems. I see this as the community having another less rigid and brutal tool than exhaust the patience bans, cool off blocks, talk page protection.
Also enforcement of the sanctions that are done by more admins sends a stronger message to the user and will help them modify their editing sooner. Currently many editors feel that one admin is picking on them. Once it is discussed on AN/I and more admins and experienced editors weigh in that opinion often changes and users are more open to change.
Sydney
On 11/17/06, Sydney Poore aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
Agree with your concerns about inexperienced admins. The point of this policy is to make sure that more experienced admins get involved by requiring discussion on AN or AN/I. Some ideas for community sanctions have been dismissed when presented. Currently blocks and user talk page protection are used with little oversight by more experienced admins to try and deal with problems. I see this as the community having another less rigid and brutal tool than exhaust the patience bans, cool off blocks, talk page protection.
You say that "some ideas for community sanctions have been dismissed when presented". Well, yes, I think they still should be. Any arrangements like this should be on a strictly one-to-one basis, not imposed down by some consensus of the community. Any other method will not work.
I also strongly disagree with issuing more process for admins to follow when they are using their initiative.
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/17/06, Sydney Poore aka FloNight poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
Previously, it has been discussed on both AN/I and AN and other places. And more importantly they were being done and logged at the community probation page. I waited until we had 3 done before I changed the name as suggested and began moving it toward policy. If you think it needs more discussion, fine, but can we do it on the talk page of the policy as well as here. Many editors and admins do not follow this discussion list.
I prefer to start debates here, so it's possible to get an over-arching opinion, rather than a closely defined one that is always the result of talking on a talk page. Most of the editors whose opinions I think are most valuable contribute to this list regularly; this is not to put down those who don't contribute to the list, merely to say that, generally and by no means exclusively, the best editors do use this list.
One positive thing in common about those regularly active on this mailing list is their ability to look at the project in broadest terms without having their vision tunnelled into a pursuit like vandal fighting. At one time mailing list participation was a prerequisite for becoming an admin.
(re-sent) Ec
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:58:30 +0000, "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a pretty awful idea. This is an extrapolation of the concept of a community ban that has no basis in logic. The concept behind a "community ban" is not "rough consensus", as shown by an 80% vote or whatever exists nowadays, but unanimity among admins -- not one admin out of >1000 being prepared to unblock you. People seem to have got hold of the idea that a "rough consensus" is good enough here. It isn't. An ArbCom case is needed when there isn't unanimity among the community.
The problem is that ArbCom cases go on for months, during which the disruption continues.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
The problem is that ArbCom cases go on for months, during which the disruption continues.
In this case, I think there needs to be consideration for increased use of temporary injunctions by the ArbCom. I don't think some kind of formalised vigilantism is going to be helpful.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:51:12 +0000, "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, I think there needs to be consideration for increased use of temporary injunctions by the ArbCom. I don't think some kind of formalised vigilantism is going to be helpful.
I am torn here. On the one hand, I think that community-based management of problem editors is a good thing. On the other hand, there are insufficient eyeballs (for community bans or anything else).
ArbCom does not scale well. Maybe with more arbs it would, but maybe the simple cases can simply be handled by admins (as in practice they usually are) and the complex cases left to ArbCom. The missing link here is the topical ban; only ArbCom currently does that, and a goodly number of people seem to feel that in unambiguous cases we should simply tell an editor not to edit a certain topic directly due to conflict of interest. But we need to record that somewhere, which is where all this started out.
Right now it's all half-formed ideas. We probably only need the existing processes and guidelines, additional stuff may well be redundant in the final analysis, because in the end what we are talking about is essentially establishing some kind of enforcement of an RfC outcome without having to go all the way to ArbCom. If a case went to ArbCom which had an RfC behind it, a decent number of complainants, a requested temporary injunction of a topical ban, and that was also the requested final outcome, would we not simply be wasting everyone's time?
Guy (JzG)
On 17/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
ArbCom does not scale well. Maybe with more arbs it would, but maybe the simple cases can simply be handled by admins (as in practice they usually are) and the complex cases left to ArbCom.
The AC has often said "look, just use your admin sense and ban this idiot."
The missing link here is the topical ban; only ArbCom currently does that, and a goodly number of people seem to feel that in unambiguous cases we should simply tell an editor not to edit a certain topic directly due to conflict of interest. But we need to record that somewhere, which is where all this started out.
I really wouldn't be sure about anyone less than the AC trying to put a topic ban on an editor.
Right now it's all half-formed ideas. We probably only need the existing processes and guidelines, additional stuff may well be redundant in the final analysis, because in the end what we are talking about is essentially establishing some kind of enforcement of an RfC outcome without having to go all the way to ArbCom.
That's a really horrible and stupid idea, e.g. the RFC against Kelly Martin which overwhelmingly censured her for removing blatant copyright violations without a vote first.
If a case went to ArbCom which had an RfC behind it, a decent number of complainants, a requested temporary injunction of a topical ban, and that was also the requested final outcome, would we not simply be wasting everyone's time?
The Community(tm) is far too often collectively an idiot.
- d,.
David Gerard wrote: <snip>
The Community(tm) is far too often collectively an idiot.
They should be banned.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:00:29 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The Community(tm) is far too often collectively an idiot
And yet we trust it to edit the world's biggest encyclopaedia...
Guy (JzG)
On 18/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:00:29 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The Community(tm) is far too often collectively an idiot
And yet we trust it to edit the world's biggest encyclopaedia...
Not in any way a contradiction. The wisdom of crowds happens when it happens. The Community has shown it can write an encyclopedia. The Community has shown it's really bad at dealing with many of the indirect processes involved. Just as with people, ability in one area does not confer ability in another, and I'm surprised you seem to think it does.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 18/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:00:29 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The Community(tm) is far too often collectively an idiot
And yet we trust it to edit the world's biggest encyclopaedia...
Not in any way a contradiction. The wisdom of crowds happens when it happens. The Community has shown it can write an encyclopedia. The Community has shown it's really bad at dealing with many of the indirect processes involved. Just as with people, ability in one area does not confer ability in another, and I'm surprised you seem to think it does.
I find some value in the concept of the wisdom of crowds, but the crowd here is the Wikimedia community as a whole, and not some self-appointed committee of the self-righteous that thinks it's a crowd because of the noise it makes.
Sam's first words in addressing this issue were "I've just come across". This was on Nov. 17, but the actual page was started Sept. 20. That's almost two months. It was probably a stroke of luck that Sam found it at all, and one wonders what other occult rules have snuck through waiting to strike at the unwary.
It is next to impossible for active encyclopedia writers to grasp the implications of such proposals. At first glance it would seem that rules like the one proposed would deal only with the people who have consistently bad behaviour to start with. In the short run that could be very true. What concerns me as that the next generation of literalists will take this in directions that were so simplistically ignored by those impatient to have their own pet inconveniences addressed.
Is it any wonder that we need to get our rule-making processes under control?
(re-sent) Ec
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:00:29 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The Community(tm) is far too often collectively an idiot
And yet we trust it to edit the world's biggest encyclopaedia...
Trust them? No. We extract every valuable resource from them before they perish. Work shall set them free.
On 11/18/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:00:29 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The Community(tm) is far too often collectively an idiot
And yet we trust it to edit the world's biggest encyclopaedia...
Trust them? No. We extract every valuable resource from them before they perish. Work shall set them free.
In Soviet Union, Wiki write you.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:28:06 +1030, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Work shall set them free.
Ooh, careful there, I can translate that into German, y'know.
Guy (JzG)
On 19/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:28:06 +1030, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Work shall set them free.
Ooh, careful there, I can translate that into German, y'know.
"Vorsprung durch Technik"? "Fahr'n fahr'n fahr'n auf der Autobahn"?
- d.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:33:30 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Work shall set them free.
Ooh, careful there, I can translate that into German, y'know.
"Vorsprung durch Technik"? "Fahr'n fahr'n fahr'n auf der Autobahn"?
Arbeit Macht Frei, inscibed ofer the gates of the concentraiton camps.
Guy (JzG)
On 19/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:33:30 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Work shall set them free.
Ooh, careful there, I can translate that into German, y'know.
"Vorsprung durch Technik"? "Fahr'n fahr'n fahr'n auf der Autobahn"?
Arbeit Macht Frei, inscibed ofer the gates of the concentraiton camps.
Ya know, it's just possible Alphax and I both knew exactly what you meant, him before you said it.
- d.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:49:25 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Ya know, it's just possible Alphax and I both knew exactly what you meant, him before you said it.
And there was me trying to be helpful...
Guy (JzG)
On 11/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:58:30 +0000, "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a pretty awful idea. This is an extrapolation of the concept of a community ban that has no basis in logic. The concept behind a "community ban" is not "rough consensus", as shown by an 80% vote or whatever exists nowadays, but unanimity among admins -- not one admin out of >1000 being prepared to unblock you. People seem to have got hold of the idea that a "rough consensus" is good enough here. It isn't. An ArbCom case is needed when there isn't unanimity among the community.
The problem is that ArbCom cases go on for months, during which the disruption continues.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
There exists the "urgent motions" section of Arbcom proceedings, which almost never seems to get used.
I have seen Arb case parties community blocked during the case, though they often are then unblocked to allow them to participate in the ArbCom case proceedings.
On Nov 17, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:58:30 +0000, "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a pretty awful idea. This is an extrapolation of the concept of a community ban that has no basis in logic. The concept behind a "community ban" is not "rough consensus", as shown by an 80% vote or whatever exists nowadays, but unanimity among admins -- not one admin out of >1000 being prepared to unblock you. People seem to have got hold of the idea that a "rough consensus" is good enough here. It isn't. An ArbCom case is needed when there isn't unanimity among the community.
The problem is that ArbCom cases go on for months, during which the disruption continues.
Guy (JzG)
That's because we are closely examining the evidence. That takes time. I have no objection to a rough remedy pending an appeal to us.
Fred