[WikiEN-l] [Arbcom-l] "Community sanctions"

Fri Nov 17 18:44:03 UTC 2006

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