I'm a might bit surprised nobody's talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Spe... here, so I thought I'd bring it up.
I'm really unsure on what I think. ArbCom introducing new policy? That's probably bad. Admins actually empowered to take action over policy violations apart from WP:CIVIL? That's probably good. That action being effectively immune to oversight, except in *maybe* the most egrarious cases of abuse? That's probably bad.
But how the community will respond is still up in the air and needs voices. Recall that even though the ArbCom introduced the contraversial MONGO remedy, eventually the community pushed back until it could no longer be applied farther than the original policy had allowed. So if a lot of people are upset (and I've never seen so much talk of open revolt), it probably is possible for the community to collectively put this into a different, more well thought out form.
Cheers WilyD
On 6/17/08, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really unsure on what I think. ArbCom introducing new policy? That's probably bad.
It is headed 'special enforcement' rather than 'special policy', and I think the distinction is more than merely terminological. The policy basis is WP:BLP which has been in place for some time and has wide acceptance; I agree it would be wrong for Arbcom to change that policy.
But how the community will respond is still up in the air and needs
voices. Recall that even though the ArbCom introduced the contraversial MONGO remedy, eventually the community pushed back until it could no longer be applied farther than the original policy had allowed. So if a lot of people are upset (and I've never seen so much talk of open revolt), it probably is possible for the community to collectively put this into a different, more well thought out form.
I believe this new provision will be workable, and with administrators acting responsibly, will benefit the encyclopaedia. If we find this doesn't happen then we will have to have a look again. However, I would be disappointed if there is an organised campaign of resistance aimed at trying to overturn the ruling ("open revolt"), more because that's just not the way we do things.
This is a proposal that will encourage administrators to not act responsibly, by destroying the principle that an administrative action can be overturned by another administrator. Any one of the 1100 or so active administrators can delete material, tc. etc. and no one can overturn it without a definite community consensus. any one of the 1100 can be as arbitrary as he pleases, and get away with it unless the community is willing to actually actively oppose him. Thus, the bias will be towards removing material--which perhaps is what some people want with BLPs. Tell me, what would the reaction be if a proposal were mooted that any one of the 1100 administrators could mark BLP material as being kept, and could not be opposed without similar agreement?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On 6/17/08, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really unsure on what I think. ArbCom introducing new policy? That's probably bad.
It is headed 'special enforcement' rather than 'special policy', and I think the distinction is more than merely terminological. The policy basis is WP:BLP which has been in place for some time and has wide acceptance; I agree it would be wrong for Arbcom to change that policy.
But how the community will respond is still up in the air and needs
voices. Recall that even though the ArbCom introduced the contraversial MONGO remedy, eventually the community pushed back until it could no longer be applied farther than the original policy had allowed. So if a lot of people are upset (and I've never seen so much talk of open revolt), it probably is possible for the community to collectively put this into a different, more well thought out form.
I believe this new provision will be workable, and with administrators acting responsibly, will benefit the encyclopaedia. If we find this doesn't happen then we will have to have a look again. However, I would be disappointed if there is an organised campaign of resistance aimed at trying to overturn the ruling ("open revolt"), more because that's just not the way we do things.
-- Sam Blacketer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
This is a proposal that will encourage administrators to not act responsibly, by destroying the principle that an administrative action can be overturned by another administrator.
That's in fact one of the core assumptions of administratorship, and the reason we keep emphasizing that it's "no big deal". Being an administrator *must not* give anyone unilateral special powers---only give them janitorial tasks, that anyone else can undo if there wasn't community consensus for the original change. Such a huge policy change change is a significant overstep of the Arbitration Committee's authority, and therefore cannot be regarded as binding.
-Mark
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
This is a proposal that will encourage administrators to not act responsibly, by destroying the principle that an administrative action can be overturned by another administrator.
That's in fact one of the core assumptions of administratorship, and the reason we keep emphasizing that it's "no big deal". Being an administrator *must not* give anyone unilateral special powers---only give them janitorial tasks, that anyone else can undo if there wasn't community consensus for the original change. Such a huge policy change change is a significant overstep of the Arbitration Committee's authority, and therefore cannot be regarded as binding.
-Mark
It can be regarded as binding in the sense that at the moment if you don't comply with it, you'll be desysoped or banned (or, not xor).
WilyD
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
It can be regarded as binding in the sense that at the moment if you don't comply with it, you'll be desysoped or banned (or, not xor).
I'm trying to imagine the banned but not desysoped administrator.
Blocking is easy, desysop requires a Steward or B'cat.
One could see a situation that resulted in a community ban (say, for articlespace problems not related to the admin bit) that hadn't progressed through Arbcom, or emergency desysop.
We don't tend to admin people who that might happen to, but you never know. Enough admins turn out to be controversial, and/or the job ends up raising controversy...
-george
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
It can be regarded as binding in the sense that at the moment if you don't comply with it, you'll be desysoped or banned (or, not xor).
I'm trying to imagine the banned but not desysoped administrator.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/6/17 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
Blocking is easy, desysop requires a Steward or B'cat.
Just a minor point, Bureaucrats cannot desysop on the English Wikipedia. It is of course possible for them to with a setting change (and I believe it is the default in MediaWiki), and on Meta-wiki all Bureaucrats can desysop.
2008/6/17 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
It can be regarded as binding in the sense that at the moment if you don't comply with it, you'll be desysoped or banned (or, not xor).
I'm trying to imagine the banned but not desysoped administrator.
Oh, easily enough. You just have to rely on them playing nice - not abusing the fact that we can't technically prevent them logging back in.
I suppose this is not a common characteristic among the people we ban, though, nor would arbcom be likely to believe in it.
Wily D wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
This is a proposal that will encourage administrators to not act responsibly, by destroying the principle that an administrative action can be overturned by another administrator.
That's in fact one of the core assumptions of administratorship, and the reason we keep emphasizing that it's "no big deal". Being an administrator *must not* give anyone unilateral special powers---only give them janitorial tasks, that anyone else can undo if there wasn't community consensus for the original change. Such a huge policy change change is a significant overstep of the Arbitration Committee's authority, and therefore cannot be regarded as binding.
-Mark
It can be regarded as binding in the sense that at the moment if you don't comply with it, you'll be desysoped or banned (or, not xor).
It depends on the situation. The Arbitration Committee is only empowered to resolve specific disputes; their dispute-resolution does not literally create precedent in some legalistic sense, although it can be used as an indication of how similar disputes might be resolved in the future, barring a change in sentiment or committee membership, and may also influence how community consensus operates. To go from a ruling in a specific case to actual general policy applying to all people, though, requires the usual policy-creation consensus step. For example, the Arbitration Committee banned a few people for excessive edit-warring, but it did not invent the 3-revert-rule--- that was done through a separate community process which turned the Arbitration Committee's bans for excessive edit-warring in a few specific cases into a general policy outlining what precisely is prohibited.
In this case, I think it's fair to say that the Arbitration Committee's ruling has not been accepted by consensus of the community as a general policy to be applied in other cases, and so anyone banning a person not directly involve in the case based on the "precedent" would be overstepping their authority as an administrator.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
It depends on the situation. The Arbitration Committee is only empowered to resolve specific disputes; their dispute-resolution does not literally create precedent in some legalistic sense, although it can be used as an indication of how similar disputes might be resolved in the future, barring a change in sentiment or committee membership, and may also influence how community consensus operates. To go from a ruling in a specific case to actual general policy applying to all people, though, requires the usual policy-creation consensus step. For example, the Arbitration Committee banned a few people for excessive edit-warring, but it did not invent the 3-revert-rule--- that was done through a separate community process which turned the Arbitration Committee's bans for excessive edit-warring in a few specific cases into a general policy outlining what precisely is prohibited.
In this case, I think it's fair to say that the Arbitration Committee's ruling has not been accepted by consensus of the community as a general policy to be applied in other cases, and so anyone banning a person not directly involve in the case based on the "precedent" would be overstepping their authority as an administrator.
It seems to me that the Arbitration Committee has come a long way from it's original intent as an appeals vehicle. In short, admins would make a ruling affecting some user's rights, and the Arbcom would review the action to see if that user's rights had been improperly violated.
When the Arbcom goes beyond its mandate it loses trust, and it is no longer seen as protecting individuals from the vagaries of administrative excess. It becomes identified with a kind of police-statism where the courts are at the bidding of the police.
While it is acceptable for rulings to be treated as precedents to be considered in future cases, such consideration should not be applied pre-emptively to cases that have not even been filed before the committee.
Ec
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It seems to me that the Arbitration Committee has come a long way from it's original intent as an appeals vehicle. In short, admins would make a ruling affecting some user's rights, and the Arbcom would review the action to see if that user's rights had been improperly violated.
I think you misread the Arbcom's original intent, which was as a scalable Jimbo. At that point, people pretty much couldn't get banned except by Jimbo edict. Admins banning indefinitely was not supported.
-Matt
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Wily D wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
This is a proposal that will encourage administrators to not act responsibly, by destroying the principle that an administrative action can be overturned by another administrator.
That's in fact one of the core assumptions of administratorship, and the reason we keep emphasizing that it's "no big deal". Being an administrator *must not* give anyone unilateral special powers---only give them janitorial tasks, that anyone else can undo if there wasn't community consensus for the original change. Such a huge policy change change is a significant overstep of the Arbitration Committee's authority, and therefore cannot be regarded as binding.
-Mark
It can be regarded as binding in the sense that at the moment if you don't comply with it, you'll be desysoped or banned (or, not xor).
It depends on the situation. The Arbitration Committee is only empowered to resolve specific disputes; their dispute-resolution does not literally create precedent in some legalistic sense, although it can be used as an indication of how similar disputes might be resolved in the future, barring a change in sentiment or committee membership, and may also influence how community consensus operates. To go from a ruling in a specific case to actual general policy applying to all people, though, requires the usual policy-creation consensus step. For example, the Arbitration Committee banned a few people for excessive edit-warring, but it did not invent the 3-revert-rule--- that was done through a separate community process which turned the Arbitration Committee's bans for excessive edit-warring in a few specific cases into a general policy outlining what precisely is prohibited.
Maybe you have not read the ArbCom's ruling? It's probably worthwhile. You can find it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_qu... and it's very explicitly a general policy that applies to all editors everywhere. It explicitly creates a new noticeboard for those claiming the new priviledge ArbCom has granted administraters.
In this case, I think it's fair to say that the Arbitration Committee's ruling has not been accepted by consensus of the community as a general policy to be applied in other cases, and so anyone banning a person not directly involve in the case based on the "precedent" would be overstepping their authority as an administrator.
-Mark
Err, banning based on this ruling in the future is explicilty allowed by the ruling. Since ArbCom has said this, and they're the only source of desysopings for behaviour, it's at least the case that you'd remain an admin if you acted.
WilyD
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:47:40AM -0400, David Goodman wrote:
This is a proposal that will encourage administrators to not act responsibly, by destroying the principle that an administrative action can be overturned by another administrator.
Independent of BLP issues, that principle has always been a problem. Permitting any admin to unilaterally reverse any other admin's action harms the collegiality of the admin corps and undermines the individual responsibility of administrators. When it is clear that the original admin would not agree to having their actions reversed, discussion is in order, not unilateral reversal.
Any one of the 1100 or so active administrators can delete material, tc. etc. and no one can overturn it without a definite community consensus. any one of the 1100 can be as arbitrary as he pleases, and get away with it unless the community is willing to actually actively oppose him.
Yes, that's how it should be. Unless there is agreement that an admin action is actually wrong, no other admin should reverse it simply because the other admin individually doesn't like it. This is simply a matter of respect for the original acting administrator, that they don't take their actions lightly and we don't reverse them lightly.
Adminship is "not a big deal" because any admin action can be undone - admins can't permanently change things. We elect administrators for their judgment, however, and we need to give them sufficient ability to exercise that judgment, provided they are willing to explain and discuss their reasoning to those who disagree. The goal of such discussion is to reach compromise on the matter, something that a unilateral reversal makes difficult by adding conflict to the situation.
- Carl
At 08:31 AM 6/18/2008, Carl Beckhorn wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:47:40AM -0400, David Goodman wrote:
This is a proposal that will encourage administrators to not act responsibly, by destroying the principle that an administrative action can be overturned by another administrator.
Independent of BLP issues, that principle has always been a problem. Permitting any admin to unilaterally reverse any other admin's action harms the collegiality of the admin corps and undermines the individual responsibility of administrators. When it is clear that the original admin would not agree to having their actions reversed, discussion is in order, not unilateral reversal.
Actually, no. How the Wikipedia system works has often been missed. Any admin can reverse any admin's decision, and this is a protection. Essentially, any admin may unilaterally take an action, thus allowing many actions to be taken with no discussion. If there is no opposition, then it's done, which is highly efficient. This, by the way, is not as far from standard democratic process in direct democracies as we might think.
But if there is an objection, properly, the original action shouldn't stand, until and unless it is confirmed. Procedurally, courtesy would suggest discussion before reversing what an admin has done, but that discussion, for efficiency, could be confined to the original admin and one who disagrees. It should not require appeal to a broader circle to reverse an opposed action, for it is quite possible that the original aministrator will decide that it's not worth the fuss.
But once an admin action has been reversed once, both the original admin and the reversing admin shouldn't touch it again, any further action should require yet another admin, and broadening circles of discussion. A single reversal of an admin action isn't wheel-warring. Repeated reversals, by the same admin, are. Wikipedia, when it works, gathers together, ad-hoc, sufficient numbers of editors that a community consensus becomes apparent.
BLP policy may set certain biases in this process, there can be a bias toward removal of controversial information, pending appeal. ArbComm, however, seems to be setting too high a standard, one of "clear consensus." That's dangerous, and is well-known, in consensus organizations, to lead to a kind of dictatorship of the minority. Rather, that's what we have ArbComm for, to make decisions when consensus isn't clear. It would seem that ArbComm is attempting to replace its function with rigid rules, which is why I noted that it seems they've lost their collective mind, and they seem to be moving beyond their franchise.
ArbComm can issue temporary injunctions; indeed, a procedure could be that any ArbComm member can issue such an injunction, which can be cancelled by another, leading to a broader decision if necessary. So if ArbComm wants to set up some operating rules to govern BLP issues, it can easily do it. It is setting up rigid rules that change how the community traditionally operates, without finding consensus for that in the community, that's a problem.
Here is the collision that could take place, if the guideline is accepted: a majority of editors believe that some information is properly sourced and balanced and belongs in an article. (and I mean by "majority," a majority of those who are informed on the issue). Similarly, there is a majority of administrators. But this could be short of "clear consensus." An admin takes the information out and protects the article. After discussion -- which wouldn't even be necessary with a non-BLP issue, for protecting a favored version is generally a big no-no -- another admin sees support for putting it back in, and does it. Is ArbComm going to allow some kind of automatic blocking or desysopping for a good-faith action by an administrator taken with majority support? Is it going to reverse all prior practice and desysop that admin itself, based on a violation of the new rules it set?
What I'd see as proper and not conflicting with the legitimate goals of the proposal is that any admin who has not previously touched the article would, once, take the allegedly offending information out. Given the conditions (the existence of controversy, and mere majority support for it being in), it shouldn't be difficult to find such an admin, and quickly. The proper BLP bias would at this point suggest much broader discussion before putting it back in; and, if controversy continued, ArbComm could step in with an injunction, quickly, and then consider the case in more deliberative fashion.
I think we need to understand and respect how Wikipedia works, first, before fixing it. What I've described as proper already exists or could be made to be so by unilateral action by administrators or members of ArbComm. I'd consider it proper for any member of ArbComm to issue a preliminary injunction that would stand,pending a decision, unless opposed by a majority of arbitrators (it could thus shift back and forth a little, if the matter is truly controversial within ArbComm, as Arbitrators show up and weigh in on it.)
David Goodman wrote:
This is a proposal that will encourage administrators to not act responsibly, by destroying the principle that an administrative action can be overturned by another administrator. Any one of the 1100 or so active administrators can delete material, tc. etc. and no one can overturn it without a definite community consensus. any one of the 1100 can be as arbitrary as he pleases, and get away with it unless the community is willing to actually actively oppose him.
I think that's actually not the position. If admin A, in any matter, claims to be acting in enforcement of ArbCom rulings, then the following apply:
(1) The ArbCom will look sympathetically on those actions by A, starting from the position that they are indeed intended as enforcement; (2) If the actions exceed what is proportionate or wise for enforcement, the ArbCom is very likely to tell A so.
Under (2), the main point, as we saw in the CAMERA case discussion, is that overly enthusiastic enforcement is not likely to be treated as (on the face of it) abuse of admin powers. The actions taken may be judged wrong-headed, but in a general AGF way, the point is that whether or not A's actions are appropriate to the case can be sorted out, as a matter of interpretation of enforcement. So we have these provisional conclusions:
(3) Such enforcement actions by A can be reversed as a result of discussion; (4) There doesn't have to be a case to change matters, just an opinion taken from Arbitrators.
The plus here is that there shouldn't be a "wheel war" feeling about reversals. The involvement of the ArbCom is now written in - what was in the past the "admin community"'s type of decision is now more likely to be taken with the ArbCom holding the ring.
If I'm right about this, the situation is nothing like as black as it has been painted. A little accumulated "case law" should be enough for a workable system.
Charles
Sam Blacketer wrote:
On 6/17/08, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really unsure on what I think. ArbCom introducing new policy? That's probably bad.
It is headed 'special enforcement' rather than 'special policy', and I think the distinction is more than merely terminological. The policy basis is WP:BLP which has been in place for some time and has wide acceptance; I agree it would be wrong for Arbcom to change that policy.
This seems like a lot of semantic play between "enforcement" and "policy". The right to enforce needs to be supported by specific enforcement policy, and enforcement policy needs to be in addition to the wrong defined in the rule. Enforcement policy is not implicit to the description of a wrong.
But how the community will respond is still up in the air and needs
voices. Recall that even though the ArbCom introduced the contraversial MONGO remedy, eventually the community pushed back until it could no longer be applied farther than the original policy had allowed. So if a lot of people are upset (and I've never seen so much talk of open revolt), it probably is possible for the community to collectively put this into a different, more well thought out form.
I believe this new provision will be workable, and with administrators acting responsibly, will benefit the encyclopaedia. If we find this doesn't happen then we will have to have a look again. However, I would be disappointed if there is an organised campaign of resistance aimed at trying to overturn the ruling ("open revolt"), more because that's just not the way we do things.
It's a common assumption that administrators will act responsibly, but that has not consistently been borne out by the facts. To say that we will have the opportunity to look at it again is either naïve or a POV push. Nobody is trying to overthrow a ruling as it related to the parties involved in that particular case. Most of us do not follow Arbcom cases, and to not participate in their petty details, so it would be grossly improper to have such a ruling extrapolated onto everyone else.
Ec
On 6/18/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sam Blacketer wrote:
It is headed 'special enforcement' rather than 'special policy', and I
think
the distinction is more than merely terminological. The policy basis is WP:BLP which has been in place for some time and has wide acceptance; I agree it would be wrong for Arbcom to change that policy.
This seems like a lot of semantic play between "enforcement" and "policy". The right to enforce needs to be supported by specific enforcement policy, and enforcement policy needs to be in addition to the wrong defined in the rule. Enforcement policy is not implicit to the description of a wrong.
I know that the line between a policy, and the way that policy is enforced, is easily blurred and sometimes arbitrary. However I think defining a new class of 'enforcement policy' is not helpful as it tries to annex more and more Wikipedia practice within the envelope of 'policy'. If you check recent Arbitration Committee decisions you'll see that there is concern among some members of the committee at the type of finding which "urges" or "encourages" editors to act in a certain way, the concern being that they are empty remedies because they lack any mechanism of enforcement.
It's a common assumption that administrators will act responsibly, but
that has not consistently been borne out by the facts.
I think the greater danger would be the assumption that administrators are bound to act irresponsibly. The Arbitration Committee should avoid falling into the trap of the crabbed old Magistrate, who only sees young people when they are brought in having committed crimes, and therefore assumes that 'the youth of today' are all criminals. Likewise when we see errant administrators we look at them as exceptions.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
It is headed 'special enforcement' rather than 'special policy', and I think the distinction is more than merely terminological. The policy basis is WP:BLP which has been in place for some time and has wide acceptance; I agree it would be wrong for Arbcom to change that policy.
From our own article on the subject: "A policy is a deliberate plan of
action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s)."
The distinction you mention is semantic and academic at best. We have here a committee which is not only manifestly decreeing policy in a way that toys with the philosophical foundations of this project, but even preparing itself to make content decisions, both things the committee was and is (supposedly) not supposed to do. I welcome you to make your case, but to pretend this isn't a big deal is an insult to the intelligence of the community that you represent -- it is a very big deal.
Administrator status is "not a big deal" precisely because we can self-police amongst ourselves. Reprehensible actions are less problematic on a wiki precisely because they can, in most cases, be quickly reversed. This ability of anyone to edit, more than anything, is what makes a wiki a wiki. Obviously, with blocking and protection, we have made necessary concessions to the reality that too much chaos can be damaging. As a community, we expect that consensus will show us a proper path, further reducing chaos. But here and now, we're providing an avenue by which adminship is absolutely a "a big deal" because any admin will, for any reason, be able to take any action of any kind against any user or article, without any need for petty things like consensus or discussion, and without any easy way to reverse that action. It takes that pesky "wiki" process out of the picture; so much easier to run the project when people can't easily edit, no?
We're even threatening dire consequences for any user, admin or not, who dares to challenge one of these actions without filling out the proper paperwork to request permission to do so. "Be bold!" we say -- just not if you're the second person on the scene. Specifically, I see a lot of mention that we should trust the good judgement of administrators, and yet this policy decree seems to do the exact opposite.
Where are the consequences for abuse or misuse of this power?
We as a community should be very careful when erecting systems which will inevitably become barriers to the creation of content and the free editing of the wiki, or which will enable users acting unilaterally to create such barriers arbitrarily and without easy oversight or accountability. We as individuals should be very careful to scrutinize the Arbitration Committee when it seems to overstep its bounds, as many users seem to think it has here.
The remedy is, as of yet, untested, and I believe predictions of impending doom are a bit overblown, but the fact remains: this is not a minor issue and should not be dismissed as one.
Apologies for the double post; seems the first at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-June/094246.html was truncated somewhere along the line.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
It is headed 'special enforcement' rather than 'special policy', and I think the distinction is more than merely terminological. The policy basis is WP:BLP which has been in place for some time and has wide acceptance; I agree it would be wrong for Arbcom to change that policy.
From our own article on the subject: "A policy is a deliberate plan of
action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s)."
The distinction you mention is semantic and academic at best. We have here a committee which is not only manifestly decreeing policy in a way that toys with the philosophical foundations of this project, but even preparing itself to make content decisions, both things the committee was and is (supposedly) not supposed to do. I welcome you to make your case, but to pretend this isn't a big deal is an insult to the intelligence of the community that you represent -- it is a very big deal.
Administrator status is "not a big deal" precisely because we can self-police amongst ourselves. Reprehensible actions are less problematic on a wiki precisely because they can, in most cases, be quickly reversed. This ability of anyone to edit, more than anything, is what makes a wiki a wiki. Obviously, with blocking and protection, we have made necessary concessions to the reality that too much chaos can be damaging. As a community, we expect that consensus will show us a proper path, further reducing chaos. But here and now, we're providing an avenue by which adminship is absolutely a "a big deal" because any admin will, for any reason, be able to take any action of any kind against any user or article, without any need for petty things like consensus or discussion, and without any easy way to reverse that action. It takes that pesky "wiki" process out of the picture; so much easier to run the project when people can't easily edit, no?
We're even threatening dire consequences for any user, admin or not, who dares to challenge one of these actions without filling out the proper paperwork to request permission to do so. "Be bold!" we say -- just not if you're the second person on the scene. Specifically, I see a lot of mention that we should trust the good judgement of administrators, and yet this policy decree seems to do the exact opposite.
Where are the consequences for abuse or misuse of this power?
We as a community should be very careful when erecting systems which will inevitably become barriers to the creation of content and the free editing of the wiki, or which will enable users acting unilaterally to create such barriers arbitrarily and without easy oversight or accountability. We as individuals should be very careful to scrutinize the Arbitration Committee when it seems to overstep its bounds, as many users seem to think it has here.
The remedy is, as of yet, untested, and I believe predictions of impending doom are a bit overblown, but the fact remains: this is not a minor issue and should not be dismissed as one.
Oy. This is a seven-paragraph post that I'd hoped would be commented on, but it's been truncated twice, now, so I will instead just post it to my blog and link it for your reading pleasure: http://lunasantin.blogspot.com/2008/06/blp-special-enforcement.html
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Oy. This is a seven-paragraph post that I'd hoped would be commented on, but it's been truncated twice, now, so I will instead just post it to my blog and link it for your reading pleasure: http://lunasantin.blogspot.com/2008/06/blp-special-enforcement.html
The two messages I got from this list are exactly the same as on your blog. Sure that the truncating isn't happening on the receiving end of your pipe?
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
The two messages I got from this list are exactly the same as on your blog. Sure that the truncating isn't happening on the receiving end of your pipe?
That's odd, then. I asked a few people to look at it, and the first to respond said they had received a truncated version (unless there was a miscommunication), and the versions in the list archive -- http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-June/094246.html and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-June/094248.html -- appear to be truncated as well. It may be worth noting both you and I have gmail addresses, but beyond that I don't know what to make of this. Apologies for any confusion/annoyance caused.
Minor correction, because I think I've been insufficiently fine grained in this paragraph. A slight re-wording:
(Snip)
BLP is an example of this latter role. There are good reasons why BLP matters, and yet instead of focussing on them, we have some degree of persistent issues over the interpretation and enforcement of this norm. This has led to editing concerns surrounding some BLP articles (or as some see it, BLPs generally). Arbcom's role here is to identify the issue, and to identify its best resolution within communal principles, if we are able, and take the steps we deem necessary to ensure communal norms do in fact get taken seriously in this most crucial type of article, as near to "all the time" as we can. To be plain, we do that in /every/ case we hear, whether the principle forgotten by the parties is BLP, NEUTRALITY, or some other.
That is where "serving a project to write an encyclopedia" comes into its own. Whilst the communal voice matters, it is only half of the equation, and sometimes (often), it needs balancing by re-affirming the other half (that the community's role is to write an encyclopedia). Despite much discussion and debate, and many attempts to find a working consensus by talk page and project page posting, the community has not fully achieved what it hoped to on BLP, and concerns persist. There is so much dispute over BLPs as a principle, that the simple issue we all agree on as a practical requirement - very high quality - is being insufficiently enforced. This may help remedy that, and although there may be many approaches and many views, this along with the guidance being drafted is the one we feel goes directly to the point. Given the singular lack of strong and effective enforcement measures that the community has produced for itself by dialog in the areas of communal concern, and which are needed to back the essentials of writing encyclopedic BLP articles to the standards aspired by the spirit of BLP policy in contentious cases, this may help. If not, we'll try something else.
Second paragraph slightly reworded to make clear what exactly is being referred to here. My apologies, and consider my first email amended.
FT2
Luna wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
The two messages I got from this list are exactly the same as on your blog. Sure that the truncating isn't happening on the receiving end of your pipe?
That's odd, then. I asked a few people to look at it, and the first to respond said they had received a truncated version (unless there was a miscommunication), and the versions in the list archive -- http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-June/094246.html and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-June/094248.html -- appear to be truncated as well. It may be worth noting both you and I have gmail addresses, but beyond that I don't know what to make of this. Apologies for any confusion/annoyance caused.
FYI: I also received the whole thing both times.
Ec
(CAVEAT: This can only be my own view, other Arbitrators will have theirs.)
Firstly, a clarification to the Footnoted Quotes case remedy will be issued shortly, which may answer many questions. That was noted on the propose decision 3 days ago, before it went final.
In the meantime, here's what is being ignored in the debate: the community is only half of the equation.
Wikipedia is not just "a community". It is a community to write an encylopedia of a certain standard and with certain mandatory policies and norms, including some at WMF level (NPOV) some traditional, some emergent, and some created by the community.
Within that system, the Arbitration Committee serves a number of purposes.
Its first role is to handle cases the community cannot, and to decide what handling will allow the project to move forward effectively and best resolve the problem that led to the community failing, if it happens again.
In that aim (doom-sayers not withstanding) Wikipedia arbitration has proven in fact, fairly successful. Of about 400 arbitrated cases I can find from the start, where a full case was heard on the wiki, less than one in ten (7.5%) come back for a second time or more. (A number come back purely for change of remedy, not the same thing, and cases are not shy to come back if unresolved.) Around 1 - 1.5% come back a third time. Users who breach a ruling and their second chance find that the scope for misconduct and "smoke" following an Arbitration case is usually quite severely limited and readily backed by a ban. There are reasons for this, which are obvious to arbitrators, but which the community has probably never really had explained in detail. We can discuss them another time. And indeed the cases Arbitrators see are capable of more fine grained solutions now. (And note... these are the site's most complex cases, and rough statistics only.)
A second role is to handle serious privacy-related issues. Harassment is one, access to privacy policy information another.
A third role is ban handling/serious admin misconduct allegations. The aim of a ban is that content-writing editors should not be troubled further. The Arbitration Committee takes these cases on, including the safeguard of appeal case handling, for the community, for that purpose. This may change or may not in future.
A fourth role is exceptionally complex investigations and situations - high profile, prolific sock operators, a number of known active sock farms, unusually delicate cases, and so on. Arbitrators, who are elected by the community (despite Jimbo's notional input, all arbitrators in the last 3 annual elections were "community choices" with minor adjustment 3 elections back for a couple of existing members re-standing) handle these cases, which would burn out many other editors.
A fifth and final role, which in a sense is integral to all of the others, is relevant here. Arbitrators also, as a committee, act as a check and balance, ensuring the pendulum does not move so far to "the community" that it moves away from its principles and away from the "writing a neutral encyclopedia", so far as to be itself damaging to the project. The community is not monolithic, and at times, needs a reminder what matters, what priorities are, to let go of the past more and not dramatize the present, and to resolve disputes (not escalate them) -- even if prurience and external parties wants all the gossip, or loud voices and strident parties want a damning verdict. We aren't a court or legal system, we're encyclopedia writers. We have traditional norms on a range of editor interaction to ensure that's possible, that guide us pretty well, and those norms include things like second chances, or keeping the good and removing the bad (non-punitive blocks, topic bans, restrictions etc). Sometimes that can be lost in the shouting.
BLP is an example of this latter role. There are good reasons why BLP matters, and yet instead of focussing on them, we have some degree of persistent issues over the interpretation and enforcement of this norm. This has led to editing concerns surrounding some BLP articles (or as some see it, BLPs generally). Arbcom's role here is to identify the issue, and to identify its best resolution within communal principles, if we are able, and take the steps we deem necessary to ensure communal norms do in fact get taken seriously in this most crucial type of article, as near to "all the time" as we can. To be plain, we do that in /every/ case we hear, whether the principle forgotten by the parties is BLP, NEUTRALITY, or some other.
That is where "serving a project to write an encyclopedia" comes into its own. Whilst the communal voice matters, it is only half of the equation, and sometimes (often), it needs balancing by re-affirming the other half (that the community's role is to write an encyclopedia). Despite much discussion and debate, and many attempts to find a working consensus by talk page and project page posting, the community has not achieved what it hoped to on BLP, and concerns persist. There is so much dispute over BLPs that the simple issue we all agree on - very high quality - is being insufficiently enforced. This may help remedy that, and although there may be many approaches and many views, this along the guidance being drafted is the one we feel goes directly to the point. Given the singular lack of strong and effective enforcement measures that the community has produced for itself by dialog, and which are needed to back the essentials of writing encyclopedic BLP articles to the standards aspired by the spirit of BLP policy, this may help. If not, we'll try something else.
Lastly, recognize that as a communally elected committee we have spent time looking into it, and take a lead from the work we have already done in reviewing the community's difficulties. This problem needs addressing, and not just in theory, or at some vague future time. Consider this situation - if a couple divorce with $500k assets, but spend $240k each arguing over it, it's rather ineffective, if your goal is in fact a constructive, productive outcome. Moral:- a reasonably good working solution that is adopted without interminable dispute and wastage is likely to be better than years of argument. That is part of the nature of arbitrated solutions in the real world as well. Plus, on wiki, we can adapt further from our current standpoint. Many things we are fine with now were seen as controversial at the time - checkuser was one, so were some ban types. This probably will be too.
Guidance and comment on the whole area - a crucial part - will be posted up shortly.
Best and regards, and once again, this is a rough comment only and I acknowledge the fact.
FT2