Viajero,
> Sorry, but have you ever gotten involved in an edit-war
> here? Sometimes they last for days. Not everyone forgets.
I've been in dozens of edit wars on many wikis. My solution
is to wait a month and then do the right thing. A few days
is nothing. Remember, you will be around longer than they
will.
If you aren't going to be, then you will have to sit down
and negotiate in good faith with the person. They may actually
have a legitimate point, just not a good way of expressing it.
Teach them what to do so next time they don't resort to
something as crass as an edit war.
Most edit wars I have been in are the result of two people
with different points of view that refuse to collaborate
on a single text. But if you act first with integrity, you
will usually come out ahead. Wikis are all about consensus,
http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?OneText
without forcing consensus.
Other edit wars I have been in are pages that are casualities
of a wider conflict between an individual and the community.
You have to do a lot of active listening to get to the heart
of the matter. It does no good to say, "Edit wars are bad,
so that's why you are bad, so you are wrong" as that is missing
the point. Why was there an edit war in the first place? Ok,
an edit war is a stupid thing to do, but it's cheaper to
teach the smart thing to do. It's not an easy solution, but
it's the easiest.
And finally there are the impossible that want to torch
the place. Then we put surge protectors in place and they
can waste their bandwidth until they lock themselves out.
http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SurgeProtector
(Actually I'm in discussions with Tim Starling about
building a better surge protector.)
SS
I wrote:
> Camembert wrote (in part):
>
> > I can understand why somebody's behaviour in fora other than the
Wikipedia
> > might cause us to regard their work with a little more suspicion than
the
> > work of other users, but I really don't think we should make any
decisions
> > on what we do with them at the 'pedia on the basis of what they do
> > elsewhere. It's basically irrelevant whether Mr. NH (or anybody else) is
> > causing trouble outside the 'pedia, and I don't like the implication
that
> > if you're to edit at the Wikipedia, you have to behave well elsewhere.
If
> > somebody is a stirling Wikipedia user but likes to troll on usenet,
well,
> > so what? Similarly, if somebody is a lousy Wikipedia user, but loves his
> > mum and is good to cats, so what?
> >
> > And again, if somebody is a problem Wikipedia user and also a problem
> > elsewhere, so what? Our concern isn't that Mr. NH is at the centre of
> > trouble outside the Wikipedia, it's that he's at the centre of trouble
> > inside the Wikipedia. That's all that matters and is quite enough for us
> to
> > take action if we have to.
>
> I agree totally. I don't think behavour outside Wikipedia should be
> relevant in Wikipedia arbitrations.
>
> --sannse
I've just thought - what *would* be relevant is if someone were to say
something elsewhere that directly relates to their editing on Wikipedia. I
mean, if someone were to say on slashdot that their sole purpose on
Wikipedia was to cause as much trouble as possible, then that would be
relevant to arbitration.
The difficulty would be in knowing whether the comment actually came from
the Wikipedian in question or someone using their name.
--sannse
Quoth Mark:
>The current arbitration case, [[Wikipedia:Matter of Theresa knott and
>Mr-Natural-Health]], has turned up some evidence that Mr. Natural Health
>has participated in a good deal of flame-warring and whatnot on Usenet,
>and has in some newsgroups been considered a "troll" and general
>trouble-maker, at least by some people. There is currently disagreement
>over whether this should be taken into account, or considered relevant
>at all. See that page's edit history and talk page for more.
One or two arbitrators have said they don't think their own real-world
identities should be publically known simply because they are arbitrators -
what they do and how they behave outside the Wikipedia is irrelevant to
what they do and how they behave on it. I agree with that. It seems to me
that this maxim should apply to all users, even those accused of being trolls.
I can understand why somebody's behaviour in fora other than the Wikipedia
might cause us to regard their work with a little more suspicion than the
work of other users, but I really don't think we should make any decisions
on what we do with them at the 'pedia on the basis of what they do
elsewhere. It's basically irrelevant whether Mr. NH (or anybody else) is
causing trouble outside the 'pedia, and I don't like the implication that
if you're to edit at the Wikipedia, you have to behave well elsewhere. If
somebody is a stirling Wikipedia user but likes to troll on usenet, well,
so what? Similarly, if somebody is a lousy Wikipedia user, but loves his
mum and is good to cats, so what?
And again, if somebody is a problem Wikipedia user and also a problem
elsewhere, so what? Our concern isn't that Mr. NH is at the centre of
trouble outside the Wikipedia, it's that he's at the centre of trouble
inside the Wikipedia. That's all that matters and is quite enough for us to
take action if we have to.
I am an arbitrator, by the way, but I'm sure I'd say the same things if I
wasn't.
All this is just my opinion, of course.
Lee (Camembert)
> From: Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: I propose a formula based on
> reverts
> CC:
> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:20:42 +0000
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
> > How about a simple formula, based on what
> percentage of a user's edits
> > are reverted by other users? (We might tweak this
> by discounting reverts
> > from a certain class of user.)
>
> What is a revert?
>
> Only sysops currently have an actual revert command
> ("rollback"). Normal
> users can only load and save older versions of a
> page; how do you know
> if it's a revert or just settling a dispute or any
> number of other
> things? How do you keep non-vandalism reverts from
> influencing the
> statistics?
>
> Additionally, even if this distinction was possible,
> this suggestion is
> leaving a rather foul taste in my mouth. People
> would get even more
> upset about being reverted than they already do.
> People would start
> accusing other people of being trolls solely because
> they reverted them
> and worsened their "revert statistics".
>
> Honestly, I don't think this is a good idea.
>
> Timwi
Anyone can revert pages. Just go to the edit history,
click on an older version, and then press edit. You
should be editing from an earlier version. Don't
change anything, just press save.
Daniel Ehrenberg
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
<sarcasm> Sure. People don't EVER use their Watchlists to make sure the garbage they put on a page didn't get deleted. </sarcasm>
Sunir Shah <sunir(a)sunir.org> wrote:Erik Moeller wrote:
>I banned Anthony after he repeatedly vandalized the same page, even though
>I had told him to stop. I immediately unbanned him after the matter was
>resolved. I am 100% positive that this was a perfectly appropriate action
>to take, with arbitration committee or without, and is backed up by
>precedent (BuddhaInside, RK etc.). Protection was not an option, because
>the page in question, a list of sites using our MediaWiki software, is
>supposed to be openly editable at any time so that sitemasters can add
>their site to the list.
A cheaper solution would have been to wait a while,
say a day or two, and then delete the problematic
text after the user had forgotten about the page.
Time is a more powerful weapon than banlists, and
it's free for everyone to use.
SS
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Tim,
I respectfully disagree: we DO NOT have anarchy.
It's a benevolent dictatorship, moving gradually to a parliamentary
democracy.
Jimbo is the leader.
Developers (like you!) hold most of the reins of power.
Admins (over 100 now!!) have access to "ban buttons" but have "limited
authority" to use them.
Signed in users are the Middle Class.
Anonymous (IP) users are the Lower Class.
Jimbo is amazingly different from a GodKing (as described on Meatball
Wiki). He subscribes to the principle that "government is best which
governs least", but when push comes to shove he has occasionally put his
foot down -- I know, awful metaphor ;-)
Developers almost always keep quiet and implement software features
which seem to have consensus. No one ever complains about THEM!
Last year saw an explosion of admins; most of the active ones now have
been around less than one year (this is a, what? 3-year-old project).
They can delete or restore an entire page (with its edit history) and --
recently -- can ban a signed-in user for 24 hours. (It's only one day,
right?) This temporary ban is really only supposed to be for
emergencies, but Jimbo issue a Decree of Clemency for the bans of the
last few weeks: let's start fresh!
I'm just as frightened by the emergence of a new government as anyone
else, but I know a few things:
* Wikimedia will continue to run Wikipedia.
* The text is all GPL'ed, so there's no way the encyclopedia can be
"taken over" by commercial or ideological interests.
* Everyone on the 2 committees has a proven track record of genuine
concern for both the product and the process, i.e., the goal of creating
a superb free encyclopedia and the goal of maintaining a pleasant
"workplace" for volunteers.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Starling [mailto:ts4294967296@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:52 AM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: unilateral bans of controversial users
Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:
> I think further action is necessary. Either:
>
> 1. Remove the feature. It wasn't there before and probably isn't
> really needed now either.
It was implemented specifically to deal with Michael and others like
him. It has been an invaluable tool in that respect.
>
> 2. Kick the sysops using the feature in the wrong way. If you look at
> Wikipedia:RfA it seems to be clear that admins are supposed to hold a
> higher standard than regular users. It therefore doesn't make sense
> that admins are allowed to make so many extremely critical errors and
> are escaping with at most, a slap on the wrist. Especially not while
> anon users arbitrarily can lose their editing powers and logged in
> users are only slightly more fairly judged.
Certainly this is the option I would favour. When I implemented my
feature, I thought that policy would be enough to keep sysops in line.
But I now realise that for a policy to be useful, a threat of punishment
is required. You can't expect people to follow the rules when there are
no repercussions for stepping outside them.
I can understand Hephaestos' frustration. In fact, I'd be in favour of
banning by a vote or community consensus, during this transitional
period.
What we have at the moment on Wikipedia is anarchy. There is no
coordinated way to deal with trolls, and sysops (and indeed developers)
have free reign.
IMHO we need
* Empowerment of users allowing them to do things without developer help
* Rules governing the use of powers
* Structure to enforce the rules
But that's just me.
-- Tim Starling
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anyone else seen this?
> BETWEEN the grooves
> Sydney Morning Herald - Sydney,New South Wales,Australia
> ... A sub-genre of black metal, its best-known (well, it's all
> relative)
> exponents are Skyclad and Waylander, says online encyclopedia
> wikipedia.org.
> ...
> <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/06/1075854056969.html>
Does anyone know if this was in print?
Peter
-- ---<>--- --
A house without walls cannot fall.
Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
-- ---<>--- --
> I'm unconvinced that leaving a note on the
> talk page will, in all cases, get the attention needed
A note on the talk page will, in almost all cases, get the attention
needed. The exception is articles with highly active and flame-
infested talk pages - in these cases use HTML comments instead.
It might take a little longer for a note on the talk page to get the
attention needed, in some cases. Patience is a virtue.
If you lack the patience of virtue, be advised that naming
convention/disambiguation discussion may take place at [[wikipedia
talk:naming conventions]]. More usefully, you can rectify most
conflicts of fact and ambiguous sentences by engaging in some
research on the topic at hand. This may require a little effort.
If you are impatient and also lazy, move on to the next page and fix
that one instead, and try to pick one slightly further within your area
of expertise.
Pages such as your proposed [[Wikipedia:Editor's forum]] have, I
am sad to say, a long and distinguished career of failure, as
experience teaches us that the number of people who want to tell
people what to do outweighs the number of people who want
someone else to tell them what to do.
-Martin
>-----Original Message-----
>From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rich Holton
>
>
>I have been mulling over an idea, and I'm hoping for
>some feedback...
>
>I have, several times, come across pages on Wikipedia
>where there is a problem, but I don't know the
>solution. This sort of thing could include:
>
>* A conflict of fact within the article, where I don't
>know which is correct.
>* A link that needs disambiguating, but I can't figure
>out which is the correct page.
>* An important sentence that is written ambiguously,
>but I don't know which sense is correct.
>
>[...]
>
>My idea is to create a page called
>[[Wikipedia:Editor's forum]] (or
>whatever...suggestions welcome) that would be a place
>to mention this sort of issue. I see the page working
>in a fashion similar to Cleanup.
>
>So, any comments?
Like Martin and Ec I am sceptical about more centralized pages.
If the Talk: page fails to raise a response, next try the User_talk:
pages of the people who have added content (it's less worth trying those
who just copyedited) to the article. After that, and if you feel the
error is glaring, try a central page.
Pete
I have been mulling over an idea, and I'm hoping for
some feedback...
I have, several times, come across pages on Wikipedia
where there is a problem, but I don't know the
solution. This sort of thing could include:
* A conflict of fact within the article, where I don't
know which is correct.
* A link that needs disambiguating, but I can't figure
out which is the correct page.
* An important sentence that is written ambiguously,
but I don't know which sense is correct.
You get the idea...
What I don't want to do is ignore the problem. On the
other hand, I'm unconvinced that leaving a note on the
talk page will, in all cases, get the attention needed
(I'm not sure, but I'd guess that there are a lot of
pages that no one has on their watchlist).
This doesn't really seem to fit the
[[Wikipedia:Cleanup|]] profile, which seems to be
primarily used for listing pages in need of
improvement for NPOV, wikification, grammar, etc. I
suppose there could be some overlap, but Cleanup is
overloaded anyway.
My idea is to create a page called
[[Wikipedia:Editor's forum]] (or
whatever...suggestions welcome) that would be a place
to mention this sort of issue. I see the page working
in a fashion similar to Cleanup.
So, any comments?
-Rich Holton (a.k.a Anthropos)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html