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(a)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
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/%22Community-sanctions%22-tf2654892.html#a7410757
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.