Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement
By excluding the vast majority of editors from the Wikiproject, the project will undermine collegiality and consensus-building, and tend to promote division between admins and non-admins, thus causing further unnecessary disruption to the encyclopaedia. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, DuncanHill. Don't you know the overwhelming consensus at Requests for comment/Self electing groups doesn't apply to the Defenders Of The Wiki? – iride  scent  20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an argument for deletion of this page, it's an argument against the fact that only administrators (who are not a self-electing group, by the way) can currently engage in arbitration enforcement. But that's how AE has been set up by the Arbitration Committee, so you have to convince them to change AE rather than to try and delete this page.  Sandstein   20:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a self-electing group? So, if I add my name to your list and start enforcing my interpretation of what Arbcom meant, my actions would be covered by the Arbcom power-grab last month well-thought-through recent motion, and thus irreversible except by Arbcom fiat? Or does "[ Admins whom Arbcom doesn't like may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities]" apply, in which case it's either a self-electing group or a de facto Arbcom-appointed ACPD MkII? – iride  scent  21:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, administrators do not elect themselves, they are elected by the community, and all administrators are free whether to join this project or not. I don't quite understand what you mean by the power grab part. If you disagree with Arbitration Committee decisions, then that is solved by electing other people to the Committee, and not by deleting this page.  Sandstein   21:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure that the Arbitration Committee is the only group with a page just for them to edit. The limitation is that it is only there for them to formulate the specific decisions that they're elected to make.  Even ArbCom doesn't have a page or project for general discussion where others aren't permitted to participate, and certainly they don't have exclusive control over their own mandate.  Beside that there is an ArbCom workshop page which allows full participation by everyone.  You seem to have in mind a page for deciding how to evaluate AE requests, where only admins are allowed to participate, and not only do they talk about how to decide the cases but also set up the standards for doing so.  That is obviously a way to insulate and consolidate control over the AE process, such that other editors can simply be ignored.  The odd thing to me is that it seems quite unnecessary to the ostensible purpose of the page, to organize AE across various topics.   If there is a reason to prohibit non-admin involvement, I would think it should be acknowledged and explained. Mackan79 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep by default since no argument for deletion is advanced (bias alert: I've drafted this project). The question whether non-admins can usefully participate in such a project can be discussed quite independently from the question raised with the deletion proposal, which is whether we need such a project at all (which I believe we do). If there is community consensus that non-admins can in fact help out with this, and if there are actually any who want to (there are few enough admins who want to get involved with AE), I've no objections to making the necessary changes, but then we would need find some other mechanism to limit involvement by the editors who are involved in the conflicts covered by the project. The project is intended in part to provide a framework for undisturbed long-term discussions among the admins whose job is to do this enforcement, and we need something to prevent these discussions from becoming ANI-style dramafests in which about-to-be-banned people post long screeds about why not recognizing the obvious justice of their national cause amounts to Nazi-style discrimination. But I propose that such changes are best discussed on the project talk page.  Sandstein   21:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WTF? What next? Proposing deletion of all arbitration pages because only arbitrators are allowed to vote in cases? Guy (Help!) 21:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're comparing apples and oranges. Admins in this project will be developing policies without allowing community participation. DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * fact. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems more like indefinitely protecting WP:BLOCK so that only admins can edit the policy. Why would we do that?  It seems odd to say they need to make the blocks and also determine the policy, without any unwanted interruption from the rest of the community.Mackan79 (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an absurd nomination with no policy based rationale. And why is it an issue that only admins can enforce arbitration? That's just the nature of the beast. It's like arguing apple's are discriminatory because they aren't blue - i.e. a complete non-sequitur. -- M  ask?  21:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or tag as historical unless someone from Arbcom can convince me as to why this is needed. I appreciate Sandstein's arguments above, but I don't agree with them; this looks to me like an attempt by a clique of self-appointed Judge Dredds to anoint themselves judge-jury-and-executioner and to ensure that their version of "what the spirit of Arbcom ruling foo is" is the only accepted interpretation, and to add a pointless additional tier of self-perpetuating bureaucracy spawned by an extremely poorly thought through Arbcom ruling that's likely to collapse under its own contradictions the first time it's seriously challenged. (Specific example; the New Order gives an inherent primacy to action over inaction. Thus, if Admin:X blocks User:Y, the block can't be overturned; if Admin:Z decides that User:Y doesn't warrant a block, Admin:X can overturn that and block User:Y anyway because there's no action to overturn.) True, Arbcom enforcement is patchily enforced and only a few people participate in it, but that's not because there's a lack of coordination; it's because Arbcom is trying to fill a GovCom role for which it was never elected, and thus many (possibly most) consider it to have lost most of its credibility and feel no desire to enforce their increasingly erratic decisions. – iride  scent  21:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a poor attempt at creating a group of untouchables. Go away. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy(-ishly) keep - It seems to me that the page, being a sort-of proposed guideline, is ineligible for deletion per WP:SK #4 (in spirit, anyway). As for the merits of said page, I believe that there is a need for admins to not only be more active in arbitration enforcement, but to be more proactive. Our current process where admins passively listen to complaints at ANI or AE and then pass judgment has significant drawbacks: instead of community discussion, we get a multi-party battlefield with tensions and bad-faith just increasing. If admins were to deal with bad behavior as it happens (and not just when it is reported), there will be a clear "bad behavior -> sanctions" message, and not the current "complain about your adversaries -> get them sanctioned" message. Will WPAE advance this goal? I don't know, but I do believe it is worth a try.  Rami  R  22:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With you deciding what constitutes "bad behavior", I take it? – iride  scent  22:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This "proactive system" would still have admins and their actions subject to community review. But make no mistake; the current process does not have the community deciding what "bad behavior" is, it just has the disputing-parties throwing shit at each other until an admin finally deals with situation, leaving everyone more hateful and less cooperative than before. Proactive admins would simply cut a lot of shit out of the process. (and for the record: I am not an admin)  Rami  R  23:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you unilaterally decide what constitutes "bad behavior", block everyone who you think exhibits said behavior, thus preventing them from commenting on the community review, and then announce that the lack of complaints on the community review proves that you were right. And you wonder why people think this is a power-grab. – iride  scent  23:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per MZMcBride. Creating an exclusive "club" for admins only (and fancy protecting the pages as well to keep the rabble out!) is a horrible idea. There are better things to do than run round acting like a cop. Wikiprojects ought to be for the benefit of our encyclopedia articles, not for the MMPORG that some seem to enjoy more.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "admins-only" aspect appeared rather self-evident to me, since only admins can do arbitration enforcement. But if this is what bothers people, that can be discussed and changed without needing to delete this project. I've at any rate undone the protection, which appears to be controversial, until we can come to a consensus about that particular aspect.  Sandstein   22:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously only admins can do blocks, but is a project really needed? Thanks for undoing the protection, but I'm still not comfortable with the idea of a Wikiproject that basically is co-ordinating blocks and bans. It misses the point that this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a game of cops and robbers. Obviously, disruptive editors need to be blocked if they break rules but there should not be a big thing made of it, like a Wikiproject.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, in my experience, it is the current framework of WP:AE that rather resembles a game of cops and robbers: people show up and scream loudly in the hope that enough will stick for somebody to sanction their enemies. It's the same thing with WP:ANI, only louder, see e.g. here. Now the ArbCom has given admins special powers to stop perennial disruption in some particularly troublesome areas; one can agree or disagree with that approach, but as long as these powers are there, don't you think that they are better employed in a coordinated and consensual manner (such as through this project) than in the shoot-from-the-hip style that the current framework invites?   Sandstein   22:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having no experience in that area, I won't argue with you on that point. However, a Wikiproject seems to go against the principle of denying recognition to problematic editors. It ought to be done quietly with little fuss. Clearly, a request page is needed as is somewhere to log, but this is done already is it not?  Aiken   &#9835;   23:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) So if you're not going to be a protected admins-only elite and you're planning to adopt the radical principle of "anyone can edit", move the thing to WP:Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, drop the "WikiProject" pomposity, and don't act like enlisting in Arbcom's private Citizens on Patrol program somehow makes you some kind of cross between Gideon and Wild Bill Hickok and gives you the moral superiority to decide that "bad behavior" is whatever you say it is. – iride  scent  22:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a dangerous project that will give a lot of power to a few. No real justice can come out of this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This wikiproject doesn't give any power to anybody. You're confusing ArbCom giving powers to admins in specific areas, with a wikiproject that intends to document best practice in order to improve the way these powers are used. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – There are three listed goals of the project:
 * listing the administrators who make themselves available for taking enforcement action in these areas
 * Seems uncontroversial enough
 * providing spaces to track recurring and longtime problems, either at the editor or the topic/article level, and to discuss the appropriate enforcement action,
 * This is just a reorganization of something like Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.
 * ''making AE precedents and best practices more accessible.
 * Also seems rather uncontroversial.
 * There is no real "power" that is being accumulated here. I don't see how "Admins in this project will be developing policies without allowing community participation." Unless I am missing something? NW ( Talk ) 22:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because only admins are allowed to post here, and what is posted here will determine "consensus" when it comes to how Arbcom's sibylline pronouncements are interpreted. Thus, the "consensus" of the half-dozen people posting here will determine "policy", and the same people will then enforce said policy. – iride  scent  22:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How is that any different from the current system of WP:AE? NW ( Talk ) 23:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree there's little power involved here that's moreso than present. However, making it a Wikiproject for admins only reeks of elitism (even if it's not the intention). It also goes against the principle of WP:DENY. Problematic editors definitely need sanctions if they continue disruption, but why make a big project thing about it? I like Iridescent's idea of creating a noticeboard to co-ordinate things. A whole Wikiproject is excessive.
 * I don't see the point in listing admins willing to do the blocks. We don't make lists like that for other areas of the project. I don't see why things need reorganizing like you say. Is there a problem with the way things are done currently?
 * Best practice can be documented somewhere, but a Wikiproject is extreme and make a big deal out of something that should not be. As I said above, Wikiprojects ought to be reserved for article co-ordination.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes in a way. There is no easy way to track restrictions and warnings given to a particular user, which would be very helpful in sorting out whether or not someone is a net negative to the project. Perhaps that could be better served just by placing it under a subpagae of the case, but I don't see the difference between that and Sandstein's proposed method.
 * Well, a user could get sanctioned over several different cases, and restrictions/warnings that don't come from arb cases would also be relevant. But for listing restrictions on a per-user basis, we already have WP:RESTRICT. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RESTRICT doesn't cover blocks, temporary bans, or formal warnings. This set-up would. NW ( Talk ) 03:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above. I fail to see what creating a self selecting cabal of wiki admins achieves other than a way to subvert community process. Use the talk page on WP:AE. Eiher way, this just reeks of good intentions being used as ashphalt for our dual carriageway to Milton Keynes. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Having read through a couple of the recent slugfests on ANI and AE regarding the I/P conflict, I agree with Sandstein's points about the trouble with the current system. I'm not sure that this wikiproject does anything that can't already be done at WP:AE, but I do think it would be a good idea for some more uninvolved people to actively attempt to calm down some of these editing areas, in particular the I/P conflict domain, rather than waiting for an aggravated party to bring a complaint to a noticeboard. The I/P-related noticeboard complaints currently seem to end up escalating almost invariably into a polarized mess, generating lots of heat and little light.  The most common (and completely understandable) admin response seems to be to throw up the hands and tell everyone to please calm down.  I'm not sure exactly what should be done better--one problem in the I/P domain is that most people who live in the world have some opinion about this issue, a very high fraction of people involved are absolutely convinced that their perspective is at least somewhat close to absolute truth, and originally uninvolved people who join the discussion seem to drift over (or be perceived as drifting over) fairly quickly to one of the "sides."  I think though that Wikiproject:IPCOLL might be able to play a more active role in moderating the temperature of these disputes, and perhaps some of the particularly calm and patient people reading this discussion may be interested in joining that wikiproject (or other wikiprojects devoted to calming down particularly contentious editing spots)? CordeliaNaismith (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I share some of Aiken's reservations. The argument for deletion is that the page's present existence and activity creates a fait accompli which is encountering resistance.   Its creation comes across as a heavy-handed attempt to make a new politburo besides arbcom an admin-only hangout that evokes pictures of a police station.  It might have been better to start from an RFC.  There's nothing wrong in principle though with wikiprojects for internal non-article tasks (WP:WPSPAM is invaluable), and having a list of AE admins that any admin can join is fine (WP:AMDB exists and survived an MfD).  I don't have a strong view on whether there should be a standalone AE wikiproject.  A noticeboard with sub-pages like WP:SPI might be ok. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is clearly about project development and wiki-politics.  Such things should not be deleted, for if they are bad ideas and we delete them, then we doom ourselves to repeat the mistakes.  MfD is not a forum for policy debate.  Even if it agreed that the idea is entirely bad, it should be tagged with failed or similar, and kept for the record.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep These pages are as likely to foster admin accountability and standardisation of actions as to become a nefarious WikiHellFireClub, providing that greater access and input is permitted. If it becomes a hindrance to better project adminning or an insular cabal then it may be deprecated and deleted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, no apparently valid reason for deletion. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per SmokeyJoe. --Avenue (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * keep - I agree with the some of the concerns raised, however I think it would be better to have individual collaborations for each area, and an overall wikiproject for enforcement. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is badly needed. Finally something will bring order and end the anarchy going on in the I-P conflict on Wikipedia (and I assume at others too). Breein1007 (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nothing wrong with offering this as a proposal. If AE were working beautifully, it should not be so hard to find any admins who want to work there. There is an actual problem that needs solving, in my opinion. We want both effectiveness and transparency. The current system has the risk of allowing POV-warriors to make AE debates so long, painful and confusing that regular editors not affiliated with one of the sides are deterred from giving their opinion. The idea that Sandstein's new page should only be editable by admins seems to have been withdrawn; that feature was bothering me. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or tag as historical. This is no doubt well intentioned, and a good idea in principle, but this appears to be an attempt at creating some sort of super-race of admins and I think the Judge Dredd comment is very fitting. I'm certain it was intended as an attempt to streamline AE and, from my limited understanding of the area, it needs streamlining, but this appearance of a superior group of admins (and I stress that I don't think this was the intention but it is the appearance) goes against the whole wiki principle. There is a risk of this kind of thing developing anyway with the very limited number of admins involved in AE, but this is a giant step in the direction of codifying the impression at least. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The current AE system is broken, and is being used as an extention of the "battlefield" by editors to punish other editors...unfortunately it ends up affecting everyone on Wikipedia -- even uninvolved editors. However, I echo EdJohnston's concerns, that efforts to make the page editable only by admins should be withdrawn.  -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 20:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a place where sysops active in AE can collect, make themselves known, and discuss with other editors how things should go down. Saying this is exclusive is wrong - If anything, this will make the process more collaborative by making it clear who is doing what, and where, and providing a single locus for AE discussions.  The wording and layout was perhaps a poor choice, but that's it. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 22:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nomination has been made too soon, since it assumes that the project will evolve in a certain fashion, which may or may not be true. If it turns out that the collective members of the project are effectively making policy on the project's pages, then at that time, the project can be nominated for deletion, since such policy decisions should be available to the entire community, and not only to admins.  But as long as the project concentrates on administrative matters necessarily in the purview of admins, it seems like a good idea.  I would urge the project, though, to reconsider the ban on non-admins posting there if the project seems to be drifiting in a polcy-making direction, even by a little. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is coming up to a full day since I, with this edit, removed the apparent ban on non-admins joining the wikiproject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have been very critical of Arbitration Enforcement in the past, but this project doesn't give any power to AE administrators that they don't already have. Actually, I think that this project is an excellent idea - With the "admin only" crap out of the way, it gives a framework for better discussion and order in the AE process. This project won't magically make the issues surrounding AE disappear, but it's a step in the right direction. Trusilver  02:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the group is not self-selecting as anyone can stand for administrator. It is rather indirectly elected by consensus by the community (as Admins are approved by the community). This bottom up flow of power for enforcement-type decisions is how it should be. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems to me that having a centralized area for discussion will make actions more transparent, not less, I also hope that it will mean that more admins become involved in AE and that they less readily succumb to burnout. If unintentional and harmful side effects arise I trust that the community can deal with it appropriately. Unomi (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep - While I have some concerns about this idea, it's probably worth giving it a try. I know that I myself have found it frustrating at times looking for old AE cases, and it would seem to make sense to keep a record of them. It may also encourage more admins to get involved with AE. And certainly, we need to keep trying new ideas, because it's not as if the current dispute resolution system couldn't use some improvement. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think some of the reaction to this WikiProject is based on a misunderstanding of what it is for. A WikiProject is just a way for editors to better organize their efforts and communicate with each other, in order to improve the overall quality of edits on a specific topic. I view this WikiProject as the administrator equivalent - a way for administrators to organize their efforts and communicate with each other, in order to improve the overall quality of their administrating on Arbitration Enforcement cases. It doesn't exclude other, non-member administrators from participating any more than a normal WikiProject excludes non-member editors from editing articles in the topic space. From time to time, WP:AE gets slammed by opinionated editors trying to solve their content dispute via administrator intervention, or by larger scale editing conflicts involving multiple editors across many articles in the same topic area (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). I view this WikiProject as just a way for administrators to work together so that AE doesn't get crippled when those flare ups occur, and so that long term problems will float to the surface, and get weeded out. ← George talk 20:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While it may be interesting to participate in a truly democratic website (www.anarchypedia.org), I fear that requiring universal consensus on every issue would not work well in practice. Accordingly, we have to delegate certain management tasks to administrators, and other long-term disputes to arbcom. There is then a need for admins to implement arbcom decisions, hence the page in question, which I support. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Too early of a nomination to properly gauge impact. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.