Would it be possible to limit the watchlist for everyone. It would be
fair, we could have it capped at say 1000 (or higher if you like). ~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@ctelco.net]
Sent: 05 May 2004 16:25
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wik and a not-quite-proposal for constitutional
change
I first noticed this long watchlist. I take it to be evidence of a
certain
over-involvement. Certainly keeping 10,000 articles, "straight" doesn't
leave much time for conversation with other users about changes and
reversions.
Fred
> From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 16:07:37 +0100
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wik and a not-quite-proposal for
constitutional change
>
> Fennec Foxen wrote
>
>>> Has anyone suggested Wik simply be denied watchlist rights? With
the
>>> servers groaning, a watchlist of 10000+ pages is surely greedy for
>>> resources.
>>> Charles
>>
>> Is there software in place to allow denials such as this?
>
> I have no idea. It is surely technically possible to clear the list.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimbo asked:
> I genuinely want to know what arguments are being made in his
> favor, and by whom, and for what reason.
Eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2
172 and Danny in particular. To a perhaps lesser extent, Baldhur, Meelar, Dissident,
RickK, Secretlondon, Sam Spade.
That's just on one page. There are lots of other discussion pages, of course, but reading
through that should give you a pretty good insight into the relevant discussion. Happy
reading! :)
Erik wrote:
> I have to say that if they cannot solve this problem [of Wik], I must consider the
arbitration process broken.
With the best will in the the world, the arbitration committee is not going to magically
turn Wikipedia into a place of sweetness and light, nor is it going to reform troublesome
users into paragons of righteousness. A fair, unbiased, and accurate banning process is
probably part of the puzzle, but it is actually quite a small part. Other parts might
include:
* Technical measures of various sorts (anti-puppet, anti-revert, anti-edit war, anti-anon
edit, etc)
* Better policies and guidelines in general
* Good mediation for problems
* Some form of content arbitration, possibly votes, possibly something else
* Bold editing
* Better policies for allowing bans of various lengths that don't require the committee.
* Culture change
* Multiple independent versions of controversial articles
* yada
* yada
* yada
As an arbitrator, I'm entirely happy to enforce whatever rules you folks decide on, and if
those rules make the committee obsolete, that would be absolutely fine.
-Martin
> why not give all admins discretionary authority to temp-ban (for 24 hours) anyone who
> violates the three revert rule?
Good question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earl…
n/Policy_vote:_24_hour_bans_for_revert_wars
... has some discussion of that point. I suggest you take it there.
-Martin
A had a thought and I'd like to get some opinions on it.
There was an issue recently where Cantus had flagarantly violated
the three-revert limit on several articles. But, since quickpolls
are currently out of the question, an admin would have to be
a vigilante to block him.
My thought was - why not give all admins discretionary authority
to temp-ban (for 24 hours) anyone who violates the three revert
rule? It would give the rule some teeth, and it would keep the
quickpolls relatively uncluttered (which was the biggest complaint
- that they were being used frivilously). It wouldn't have to be
applied in all cases, but just one where the admin thinks that the
involved user(s) need a time-out. If someone thinks they
are unfairly banned, they could bring it up on the Request for
review of Admin actions. Quickpolls could be reserved for persistantly
bad behavior.
I'd like some feedback to see what everyone thinks.
--Mark
I agree with Erik in virtually everything he says. The AC process is too slow. It's not the arbitrators fault, anything done by a committee is always very slow. But we _must_ fix it. I cannot believe we can lose a user like Tannin.
Theresa
Just tossing out ideas here, but why don't we have a group of God users,
who we trust. The God users would have the power to temporary ban
someone for say a week. (or a month, whatever is necessary).Or delete
personal attacks, or Perhaps two of them would be needed, to stop anyone
of them going on a rampage, they would be held accountable by the AC and
the community.
We could then just let them get on with it.
Theresa
>May 05, 2004
>
>Research Shows Media Increasingly Cite Wikipedia as Credible Source
>
>A fascinating paper presented by Andrew Lih, an Assistant Professor
>at Hong Kong University, at the University of Texas at Austin's
>recent International Symposium on Online Journalism analyzes how
>Wikipedia's articles are increasingly cited in the media and as a
>credible source. Wikipedia is a popular Internet-based, user
>contributed encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited.
>
>"Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources?" (PDF) is
>the equivalent of The Pelican Brief for the public relations
>industry. It's a must read for any PR pro trying - as I am - to
>understand the impact that participatory/citizen journalism will
>have on our profession. It provides clear metrics that show how
>Wikipedia has quickly emerged as a media influencer. During a 14
>month period (Jan. 03 - Mar. 04), according to the research, 113
>Wikipedia articles were referred to by various news outlets.
http://steverubel.typepad.com/micropersuasion/2004/05/research_reveal.htmlhttp://journalism.utexas.edu/onlinejournalism/wikipedia.pdf
--Sheldon Rampton
>The problem here is ironic. We let trolls go on a bit too much. Then
>someone like Wik sticks his neck out to fight them, but *also* in the
>process makes himself extremely annoying to other users. If we had
>already gotten rid of the original problem users, then maybe Wik
>wouldn't have felt compelled to behave badly.
I think you're absolutely right. Wik appears to have become so used to dealing with real vandals, that he seems to see anyone who disagrees with him as a vandal. As for your quickpoll proposal, we should try it and see. It's the only way of finding out if it has merit.
Theresa
User:Tannin and User:Kosebamse left, in large part because of Wik's
extremely aggressive behavior (continued reverts on many pages: he now has
a list of pages he reverts daily to be in compliance with the arbitration
ruling of not reverting the same page more than three times a day; he also
calls many users "morons" on his user page in clear violation of
Wikiquette).
Tannin and Kosebamse were both great and highly productive users. I don't
want to compare them against Wik, and I have nothing against Wik
personally, but if he can't learn to cooperate and keeps driving valued
contributors away, he has to go, period. In fact I suspect that he is
*trying* to get himself banned to play the victim.
Wik is currently in arbitration again. I urge the AC to speed up their
negotiations on this matter as every single day increases the risk of
losing more people. The least severe punishment I would find acceptable is
to forbid Wik from reverting edits entirely for a substantial amount of
time. If he has to revert something, he can try to convince someone else
to do it. At this point I would not rule out a temporary ban, however.
My gut feeling is that the arbitrators will be too lenient again. I have
to say that if they cannot solve this problem, I must consider the
arbitration process broken, and will strive for a complete reform. I
respect all of the arbitrators, of course, but I believe so far this
process has been far too slow and ineffective. Even Jimbo was faster and
less lenient.
Regardless of any AC reforms, I definitely think that we need an acting
body which can say things like
- "Wik, take these insults down or you will be banned"
- "Wik, justify your edits on the discussion page X before you revert
again, or you will be banned"
- "Wik, because of your behavior, you may not edit article Y for the next
week"
*quickly*. Such decisions can be the result of a poll among sysops, a
committee, individual appointed users, I don't care. But we definitely
need something that *works* before we lose more people and reputation. I
know we have quite a few hardcore anarchists, but as [[Wikipedia is not]]
states, we are not a vehicle for testing anarchism. We are an encyclopedia
and a community, and we need to develop realistic and effective ways of
dealing with problem users.
Regards,
Erik
Hello Everyone,
We have launched the Election Campaign for the Board of Trustees of the
Wikimedia Foundation. This is an important step forward in our emergence as a
Foundation, and your participation is crucial.
The election is for two seats on the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
Foundation:
1) Contributing Active Member Representative;
2) Volunteer User Representative.
I quote Jimbo in saying that:
"The role of the board is *not* generally to get involved in the day-to-day
operation of the website. The board is a legal entity entrusted with ultimate
decision making for the Foundation. Website governance is a different matter
altogether. I don't anticipate that
the board will be a difficult or demanding position."
In the future, only Members who have paid dues to the Wikimedia Foundation
will be eligible to run for the Contributing Active Member Representative. All
Users will be eligible to run for the Volunteer User Representative. However,
since the dues infrastructure is not yet in place, we have decided that all
Users who have been with the project for at least three months will be eligible
to vote and run for both seats on the Board. Candidates must be prepared to
identify themselves by name and geographic location in order to participate in
the election. Verification of their identities will be required to either of the
Co-Chairs of the Wikimedia Election Committee. Complete confidentiality is
ensured by us.
A FAQ regarding the roles of the Board of Trustees, electoral procedures, and
other information is forthcoming.
Elections are scheduled to be held from midnight (GMT), Saturday, 30 May 2004
to midnight (GMT), Saturday, 5 June 2004. All candidates must have been
registered by then. midnight (GMT), 29 May 2004. The 24-hour interval will allow us
the necessary time to verify the candidates' identities and make a final
determination whether they are eligible to run.
This is not a popularity contest. Please avoid adding comments to the List of
Candidates Page, such as "Great Contributor!" "Good choice!" "Troll" etc. All
such comments will be removed immediately.
We encourage the candidates to create pages where voters can ask them
questions.
It is important that participants in all languages and on all projects
participate in this election. If you speak a language other than English, please
translate the election notice that appears on the top of the English-language
"Recent Changes" page and post it in a prominent location on the respective
project. There is a link for you to follow in the notice to inform us that you have
done so. This way, we will make sure that projects in all languages have been
informed.
Apart from the translations, we ask that the Notices not be edited or changed
in any way except by or with the express permission of either [[User:Danny]]
or [[User:Imran]]. While this is exceptional for Wikipedia, it will ensure
that this election is conducted fairly. Please address all your questions and
concerns to the Talk Page of the Election FAQ, which is linked from the Notice.
Note that all election materials except for the notices and possibly the
candidates' information pages will be located on Meta. This is done so as not to
favor one language over another. In the future, we hope to have greater
flexibility with regard to other languages, but as for now, initial election
information will be posted in English.
More information is forthcoming, both on the Mailing Lists and on the
Respective Pages. This is the first time that such an election is being held, so
please bear with us.
May the best WikiCandidates win.
Imran and Danny
Co-Chairs, Wikimedia Election Committee