ArbCom Legislation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
133 messages Options
1234 ... 7
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ArbCom Legislation

Wily D
I'm a might bit surprised nobody's talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement
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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Sam Blacketer
On 6/17/08, Wily D <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

David Goodman
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
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6/17/08, Wily D <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Mark
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


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Wily D
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Delirium <[hidden email]> 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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Wily D <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

George William Herbert
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Wily D <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Mark
In reply to this post by Wily D
Wily D wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Delirium <[hidden email]> 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


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
In reply to this post by David Goodman
At 11:47 AM 6/17/2008, 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.  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?

It looks to me like ArbComm has gone totally mad. But I didn't read
the arbitration. It's one thing to protect an article at the drop of
a hat, and BLP policy would allow an admin to protect, in this case,
to "a preferred version," but the proposal goes way beyond that.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a "definite community consensus" arise on
Wikipedia. We don't have procedures for determining that; rather we
have an escalating response process that is not designed for crisp decisions.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Sam Blacketer
Sam Blacketer wrote:

> On 6/17/08, Wily D <[hidden email]> 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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by 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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Sam Blacketer
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On 6/18/08, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> 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.

--
Sam Blacketer
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
2008/6/17 Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Wily D <[hidden email]> 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.

--
- Andrew Gray
 [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> 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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Al Tally
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
2008/6/17 George Herbert <[hidden email]>:

> 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.

--
Al Tally
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reversing admin actions, was: ArbCom Legislation

Carl Beckhorn
In reply to this post by David Goodman
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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by David Goodman
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




_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Wily D
In reply to this post by Mark
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wily D wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Delirium <[hidden email]> 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_quotes#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons
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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Daniel R. Tobias
In reply to this post by Wily D
On 18 Jun 2008 at 00:30:34 -0700, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 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 na?ve 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.

And in this case, the remedy was attached to a case that didn't seem,
on its face, to have anything whatsoever to do with the issue the
remedy was addressing; it was a case about the formatting of
reference quotes, about as "wiki-wonky" a topic as you can imagine,
and got very little attention even from those who regularly follow
what the ArbCom is up to, compared to some more drama-intensive
ArbCom cases going on at the same time.

ArbCom says as a matter of ideology that it doesn't make policy and
is not obliged to follow precedent, but in this case they seem to
have made policy, and done so in a highly stealthy manner seemingly
designed to be placed in force with as little community comment or
notice as possible.  They perhaps hoped that it would remain beneath
the radar in the usual drama venues until it began to be quietly
enforced.

A more above-board manner of adopting such a remedy, if the ArbCom
were insistent on doing it, would be to have had a case specifically
on the subject of BLP enforcement and its failures, with parties who
were involved in BLP controversies and had a live dispute in that
area (the function of ArbCom, after all, is to resolve disputes, not
start them).  Then, the community would know that a sanction in that
area was being proposed and could present relevant evidence for or
against it.  Instead, the actual case has (as far as I could see) not
a single piece of evidence on its evidence page that relates to the
subject of this remedy.


--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ArbCom Legislation

Charlotte Webb
On 6/18/08, Daniel R. Tobias <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And in this case, the remedy was attached to a case that didn't seem,
> on its face, to have anything whatsoever to do with the issue the
> remedy was addressing; it was a case about the formatting of
> reference quotes, about as "wiki-wonky" a topic as you can imagine,
> and got very little attention even from those who regularly follow
> what the ArbCom is up to, compared to some more drama-intensive
> ArbCom cases going on at the same time.

Yes any page titled "requests for arbitration/footnoted quotes" is
almost guaranteed from day one to be dismissed as shit nobody cares
about by anyone who might be aware of it. Looking at the result I
can't decide whether this is Sophoclean irony or Epeian brilliance.

—C.W.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234 ... 7