[WikiEN-l] "Community sanctions"

[Sam Korn]

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