WikiEN-l January 2004

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

104 participants
417 discussions

Kill the puppy (was: Quacks Like a Duck)
by Poor, Edmund W 22 Jan '04

22 Jan '04

Fred Bauder wrote: > You grossly exaggerate. We'll catch em at dawn, mediate > em in the morning, arbitrate em in the afternoon, hang em > and be home in time for supper. That makes mediation seem like a mere formality. Don't you think we should actually try to mediate? You know, find common ground as a basis for a harmonious relationship? Ed Poor, aka Unsolved Equation

5 9

Enough is enough
by Graham Burnett 22 Jan '04

22 Jan '04

> > Mr-Natural-Health has indicated on Teresa Knott's Talk page that he has no > interest in participating in the Arbitration process. OK, now what? Is he > going to get to continue to mess up article after article and call people > names forever because nobody wants to do anything about him? > > It's still the *mediation* process at this point. We are still attempting > to persuade him to try mediation - if that fails then I guess we will have > to pass this over to the arbitration committee. > > This is where my pessimism starts rising. > > Regards > > sannse Why is everybody tip-toeing around this arsehole? Surely enough is enough. Sod 'mediation', if somebody was behaving like this in my local pub they'd have been shown the door long ago. Graham (Quercus robur) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004

5 9

Trolls, how to feed them: not
by Poor, Edmund W 22 Jan '04

22 Jan '04

I'm losing patience with trolls. If it's not a borderline case or a misunderstanding or the outgrowth of some longstanding POV dispute, but a clear case of someone just making trouble to get attention... With a username like The Fellowship of the Troll, tFotT seems like a clone of Entmoot of Trolls. Both names are an obvious Lord of the Rings reference, and both users act the same: obnoxiously. He's even managed to tick off the mild-mannered Pakaran and the unflappable Angela. Eloquence gave him a ban warning. I don't care if the ISP is different. The behavior is the same. Let's not make this the first case for Mediation or Arbitration. I hereby request Jimbo to contact this guy directly and lay down the law to him. Ed Poor

5 4

Arbitration progress report #1
by Martin Harper 21 Jan '04

21 Jan '04

Dear all, We've been spending the last few days getting in contact, organising ourselves, getting acquainted, and informally exploring the various issues that may arise. For the time being we're using a private mailing list for most of our discussions. Jimbo asked us to choose a chair, and I've been chosen for now. Sadly, we're yet to make contact with Gutza and The Cunctator - if anyone knows where they might be, that'd be helpful. We're very interested to hear your thoughts and suggestions on all aspects of the job - we suggest either [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators]] or here. Once we have an agenda, we'll post that, and keep you informed of what we're currently discussing, what we've decided, and so forth. Thanks for your patience, -Martin

4 3

Deletion reorg vote
by erik_moeller＠gmx.de 21 Jan '04

21 Jan '04

After much discussion, there is now a vote to reorganize the various deletion-related pages and to split the VfD process into two stages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy This was initially one big vote, based on feedback I've now separated it into different parts. The most significant proposed change is to split [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] into two stages, [[Wikipedia:Deletion requests]] and [[Wikipedia:Deletion votes]]. The problem is that right now, different people have contradictory ideas as to what VfD is supposed to be. Some regard it as a "consensus only" page and oppose all voting, others have effectively already started deleting pages according to a 2/3 threshold. This proposal tries to find a compromise between the "no voting, ever" faction and the "vote on everything" faction. It requires those who want a vote to undergo a 7 day consensus seeking stage, and to do the job of summarizing the arguments that have been brought up in that stage. If no consensus can be reached, they can list the page at "Deletion votes" (with the aforementioned argument summary being a mandatory part of such a listing), and if 80% of support can be reached, the page may be deleted. I would like to urge the voting opponents to consider this compromise. It is very favorable to them, as it requires a high threshold (80%) and generally encourages consensus seeking over voting. I would also like to urge the voting advocates, who I suspect to be more numerous, to accommodate the opponents in this regard to avoid escalation. The proposal is tied to a 30 day trial period. After that period we can argue and vote once again on whether we want to continue using this scheme, refine it, or go back to the old "VfD" scheme, whatever that is. Please participate in this decision. Regards, Erik

1 0

re: Arbitration progress report #1
by Martin Harper 21 Jan '04

21 Jan '04

Sascha asked: > Why the secrecy? Email gives a nice fast response, and one of us happened to have the facilities to quickly set up a mailing list. It's not necessarilly intended as a long term solution. -Martin

3 2

Duck Court
by Daniel Mayer 21 Jan '04

21 Jan '04

Fred Bauder wrote: >Well, we could have a summary procedure for egregious cases, >couldn't call it Kangaroo Court, maybe Duck Court. It could be >evoked by Ed Poor and a few others of his status, say also Daniel >Mayers. They could then briefly consider the matter and ban the >offender until the matter could be considered by the mediation and >arbitration committees. Kind of like a preliminary injunction. Grounds >would be the likelyhood of permanent damage to the project resulting >from serious offenses combined with a general refusal to listen. I wouldn't leave it to Ed or I. I would feel far more comfortable with a quorum of the arbitration committee. In these cases, we could impose a temporary ban pending a full arbitration process on what to do next. But IMO, we cannot do such a thing until the submission standards go live on edit windows. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

1 0

MNH, again
by Daniel Mayer 21 Jan '04

21 Jan '04

Sannse wrote: >It has. Teresa has invited MrMH to take part in a mediation >(with admirable politeness). He refused and so Jussi-Ville >Heiskanen approached him as a member of the mediation >committee. He hasn't yet responded directly to that >approach (although he may have indirectly). Let's give >him a little time to respond - then we will look at what needs >to be done next (for example if he responds positively a >mediator will have to be agreed and so on). All the more reason to turn our submission standards page into policy and link it from edit windows. Then everybody who edits will have agreed to submit to our conflict resolution process. If MrNH then outright refuses to enter mediation, then he will have broke the contract he signed, and can be safely banned. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

1 0

The Process (was: MNH)
by Poor, Edmund W 21 Jan '04

21 Jan '04

We all agreed to do this -- or Jimbo suggested this, I forget which: 1. Make a good faith effort for mediation. That's what the Mediation Committee was formed to do. 2. If this results in a good solution, announce the solution and that's the end of it. 3. In case mediation fails, the Arbitration Committee will do its thing and render a decision. Hang 'em at sunrise or slap his wrists: i.e., permanent hard-ban, temporary ban, edit quota, whatever they decide. 4. If this works, that's probably the end of it. (Reincarnation to evade a ban is usually handled by developers examining IP logs, etc.) 5. A "banned" user can appeal to Jimbo, who may veto the Arbitrators' decision. We are still at step #1 on MNH. It's our first case, and we want to do this right: please give us extra time. Ed Poor Member Mediation Committee

2 1

Re: MNH, again
by uninvited＠nerstrand.net 21 Jan '04

21 Jan '04

Have we made any determination whether or not MNH is a previously-banned user? His writing style and modus operandi remind me of a user that has been banned several times. UninvitedCompany

1 0

← Newer
1
...
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
...
42
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l January 2004