[WikiEN-l] "Community sanctions"

[Sydney Poore aka FloNight]

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

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22Community-sanctions%22-tf2654892.html#a7409719
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.