User talk:Brews ohare/Clear sanctions

Comments?

(Disclosure - I was asked to look at this). Disagree, sorry. A dispute that reaches AE has been in individual parties' hands, in the community's hands, in administrators hands, and finally after a range of processes a user has asked Arbcom to address it because nothing else seems to be likely to resolve it. Arbcom then largely concur and specify the ruling they see as appropriate to resolve it.

At that point the matter is clear. The sanctioned party is expected to avoid all reasonable risk of breaching the ruling. if they do, then the issue isn't in a large scale consensus-drama. The reason it's called "enforcement" is because at that point the only question is "was the ruling breached". Any admin who feels it was breached, can act. It is a stern process. That's because users who have been sanctioned are expected to take it seriously and avoid anything that hints of breach. Any admin who feels a breach occurred may enforce the ruling. As normal if a breach hasn't occurred then simply nobody will speak up. If the enforcing admin is biased, mistaken, or uses poor judgment, then and only then is there a question, and that's found by other admins evaluating the matter and asking for the first admin's basis if unclear.

This AE process is intended to enforce dispute resolution compliance in the most serious and contentious of matters. It's similar to blocking - any admin may block, if there is a question or appeal then it is discussed. Any single admin who believes a ruling is breached may act. The onus is on the sanctioned party to avoid the risk of giving that appearance by their actions. There is rarely a need to "submit reasons" to Arbcom. They have stated what enforcement is appropriate, admins are trusted to follow that. If enough admins disagree to make clear the first admin's judgment was blatantly untenable as judged by the community (not just by one "side" of the dispute), then it can be reversed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FT2: Your comment largely misses the point; it assumes rules are clear. Any examination of ArbCom proceedings shows that to be not the case. Brews ohare (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no field of human endeavor where rules have been universally successful: no set of rules can eliminate conflict. Since never-ending walls of text damage the encyclopedia, I favor firm AE procedures, and those subject to arbcom restrictions will just have to accept that life can be unfair, and mistakes can happen (that's why there is an appeal process). The alternative to firm arbcom enforcement is chaos. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq: "walls of text" arise in debate over unclear formulation of what constitutes a violation and what sanction is applicable. The "firmness" of ArbCom is not at issue here. Brews ohare (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Johnuniq about the appeals prcess. There is no appeals process that I'm aware of. There exists a pardon system where you have to show that you have accepted guilt and have made improvements. In itself, having such a system is not bad. But it is misleading to present this system as an appeals system. Because if you were to appeal with the mindset of really appealing some sanctions, you would be faulted for not having accepted guilt on all points. I think we need a real appeals system parallel to the current pardon system. Count Iblis (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis: You are entirely correct; for someone accused of infraction in a gray area, there is no way to determine whether infraction actually has occurred, or whether the accusation of infraction is a consequence of simple mistake or malice. Of course, it would be best to first determine whether an infraction really has occurred, and whether the infraction is deliberate or accidental. However, that is not attempted, and instead, in a gray area, the person accused is presumed to have made an infraction, and some apology is demanded as prerequisite to consideration. (“the better approach is to block indefinitely but unblock immediately as soon as we are convinced that the disruption will not resume.” [My emphasis] Sandstein) The question of whether the accused actually did harm to WP is considered irrelevant, and verbatim statements by Admins may be provided that say any infraction must be punished. See, for example, AGK ("Violations of a topic ban are always punished even if they are helpful to Wikipedia.") and Sandstein ("If you do not do this, for whatever reasons, you will be blocked, no matter who reports you for what reason.") These statements are Admins actually advocating Wikilawyering, while normally it is considered inimical to WP. Whether an infraction is real or imagined is hardly a matter of importance: someone said an infraction occurred; that is sufficient when the rules have a gray area. Brews ohare (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard:

I know I'm pretty low on the list of persons you would care to get feedback from, but this is a topic I have been discussing elsewhere recently. Not your specific case but rather the vagueness of many policies/rulings/guidelines/etc on Wikipedia. It's not an accident. We cannot and should not try to envision every possible interpretation or violation. Administrators, and indeed everyone else, are expected to use judgment and common sense in interpreting policy. The phrase "broadly construed" is often used in ArbCom decisions for precisely this reason. If you have to ask yourself if you are violating the restriction or not, then you should err on the side of caution and not do whatever led you to ask yourself that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wikipedia is supposed to be a cluocracy not a bureaucracy, the more detail you put in the easier it is for the Wikilawyers to have a field day - however, it is also fair that if someone is in doubt they should be able to get rapid clarification. Part of the problem here is that requests for clarification go in after the event and get bogged down in sideshows. Perhaps we should give some thought to providing a simple mechanism - which can be notified as part of the notice of restrictions in the case itself, when restrictions are part of the outcome - for the restricted user to ask up front whether something is in or out of scope. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen: Thanks for your comments, which indicate some interest in the issue of clarity of measures and rapid ArbCom response times. My notion of how to approach such matters is simply this: let the editors on a page thrash things out. It's the editors' problem. Keep ArbCom out of it.

ArbCom simply referees to keep the editors from breaking into bloody combat, by enforcing very clear, general, non-specific policies & guidelines that can be arbitrated very quickly, because they are black-and-white transgressions. Because of clarity, no Wikilawyering is possible. (If arbitration is necessary, usually infractions will be obvious enough.) Forgive this observation: I think ArbCom is over-involved in undue details and too slow because many Administrators just like involvement, regardless of its effectiveness.

BTW, for those Admins that like to be more involved, I have proposed a filtering stage be added to ArbCom decision making. The purpose is to sort out in advance those cases where a rapid decision can be made, and send the rest back to the conflicting parties for further clarification before ArbCom gets into it. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]