Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement

Wikipedia: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? – iridescent 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? – iridescent 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• Provisional delete 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. – iridescent 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? – iridescent 22:28, 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 ♫ 22:27, 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)