I have tried three different email addresses to reach the original
author of these entries, presumably named Eric Tentarelli. All seem to
be down. Any help in tracking him down would be appreciated.
Meanwhile, I say we continue using these entries. They were clearly
intended to be used the way we use them.
Magnus
Don't blame Cimon Avaro for not doing his homework on this one.
Earlier today I quoted the following from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration :
"Currently, the arbitrators accept referrals from Jimbo Wales only, which
they decide to arbitrate on based on the voting procedure described at
wikipedia:arbitration policy."
Meanwhile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy says:
"The arbitration committee accepts requests for arbitration from anyone;
however, in most cases, the arbitration committee will only hear cases
referred to them by the Mediation Committee or directly from Jimmy Wales."
There needs to be some harmonizing of these two pages, methinks.
Brian (Bcorr)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>Before you criticize something, it would be very helpful to read the relevant
>documentation:
Ed said the below to Iris. Shouldn't such juvenile
threats be grounds for immediate desysoping? Who says
there isn't a cabal -- this post proves that there is,
and Ed is a member.
----------------------------------------
Iris, shut up and get back to work! You are wasting
everyone's time. Either help us to write accurate
[[NPOV]] articles, or leave.
I don't give a rat's ass about whether natural health
or iridology or zone manipulation are true or not.
Just make your case for them, and leave it for the
reader to decide.
People have bent over backwards to accomodate you,
mostly out of a pure concern for fairness and justice.
You have eroded all the good will left in my body. Any
more crap out of you, and I will "take steps". Better
listen up good, because I'm one the oldest "old hands"
around here and I know how to work the system. Don't
get me riled up against you, or I will force you out!!
(A word to the wise is sufficient.) --[[User:Ed
Poor|Uncle Ed]] 14:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_review_of…
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
All I can say is that you can go to
http://boards.wikimedia.org/viewtopic.php?t=60 and judge for yourselves
what took place.
Brian (Bcorr)
At 03:31:20 UTC Wed Mar 31 2004 A [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
>As Anthere noted, most attempts at mediation have
>failed. This is because the mediation committee is
>rude and elitist -- it refuses to "dirty its hands" or
>make any genuine efforts to facilitate mediation.
>
>After I accumulated several wasted hours of
>petitioning the committee, they have refused to even
>attempt to leave some posts (at relevant article talk
>pages) and invite users to accept or embark upon
>mediation. In short, THEY HAVE NOT EVEN TRIED TO
>MEDIATE.
>
>I hope you all have a great deal of fun with your edit
>wars. You will only have more and more, more and more
>-- you can ban trolls all day long, there will always
>be more people to disagree with you. The mediation
>committee is not doing its job, and the next time
>someone reverts you without explanation -- you can
>thank them.
>
>I propose that everyone on the mediation committee be
>awarded the Barnstar of Banal Bureaucratic Pride.
Anthere wrote:
>Since mediation are usually done by only one mediator,
>how do you think we could do this ? It happened that
>some cases were discussed a bit with other mediators,
>for support, but since mediation is private; and what
>is said is private, how could the opinion of the full
>committe have more weight that the opinion of the
>mediator only ?
All mediators should be trustworthy enough to consult among themselves without
exposing details of any matter to the general usership, methinks. But I won't
even begin to pretend that I should have much or any say over the affairs of
another committee.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
As Anthere noted, most attempts at mediation have
failed. This is because the mediation committee is
rude and elitist -- it refuses to "dirty its hands" or
make any genuine efforts to facilitate mediation.
After I accumulated several wasted hours of
petitioning the committee, they have refused to even
attempt to leave some posts (at relevant article talk
pages) and invite users to accept or embark upon
mediation. In short, THEY HAVE NOT EVEN TRIED TO
MEDIATE.
I hope you all have a great deal of fun with your edit
wars. You will only have more and more, more and more
-- you can ban trolls all day long, there will always
be more people to disagree with you. The mediation
committee is not doing its job, and the next time
someone reverts you without explanation -- you can
thank them.
I propose that everyone on the mediation committee be
awarded the Barnstar of Banal Bureaucratic Pride.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Anthere wrote:
"should mediators lose their time and energy on trolls, or use it for issues
on which they can help ? Is not providing mediation to a troll and tiring
out mediators, just feeding the troll and weakening the community ?"
Anthere is absolutely right.
There are people coming to Wikipedia who have no intention of making a
collaborative contribution. Most of these cases are clear cut, and there
really is no point in carrying on a discussion with these people, because
(a) they enjoy it and will perpetuate it for this reason, (b) they have more
time than we do, and (c) they're not going to change.
Recent examples include Irismeister, Mr-N-H, and Platus Satire, Grazingship.
None of these people share the goals of the project. For such
individuals, we should follow a process that is fair, rapid, transparent,
and that provides a minimal opportunity for the faux contributor to utilize
Wikipedia as a source of entertainment.
Contrast this with the matters involving longstanding users who have a
genuine desire to further the project's goals, but who have difficulties
contributing in a positive fashion. The original intent of mediation and
arbitration was to serve these people so that they can better serve the
project.
Kindest regards
The Baron
_________________________________________________________________
Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months
FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=ht…
>It was the proxy blocker. But how does it work ? I use Squid cache but
>there should be no way to connect on my proxy port from the Net.
>I've added some acl to allow only my internal network IP should I do
>something else ?
I'll let someone else answer this as I haven't got a clue.
>How can I be unblocked ?
I've unblocked you, but I don't know if the proxy blocker will just
block you again when you try to edit. Have you tried creating an account
and logging in ?
Theresa
I think weeding out trolls is a primary task of Mediators.
I agree with Anthere that disputes between good contributors can be
resolved with logic and courtesy.
I think, however, that as soon as the Mediation Committee realizes that
One of the parties is not interested in Wikipedia goals but is just
yanking our collective chain -- then label them a troll and refer them
to Arbitration for their time-out.
This is exactly the same technique I used in my Sunday School. If a
child is willing to apologize and make up, then no punishment is
necessary. Otherwise, time-out: immediate, no debate, no appeal.
My class became so quiet and happy that enrollment quickly doubled!
(Pretty good considering my only experience teaching young kids was one
viewing of "Kindergarten Cop"!!)
When word got out, people came from several states away, just to find
out how I did it.
Don't feed the trolls! Give them a time-out!!
Ed Poor
Application Engineering
x5479
Mediation and arbitration
3 months roughly
Perhaps time to make a summary/report then...
A : How many requests were done to MC ?
B : How many requests were accepted ? (ie, cases where all disputants agreed to mediation, and agreed on a common mediator)
If A is different of B => why were requests not accepted ?
Is it because some "regular" users refused mediation with a "troll" ?
If so, what do we propose to regular users being out of energy due to trolling ?
Is it because the two could not agree on a common mediator ?
Should more mediators be involved ?
Is it because no mediator accepted the case ?
In this case, why did they refuse ? If the one requesting is a troll, are mediators expected to lose their time with the troll ? What do we do with the troll exhausting us ?
C : How many mediation succeed ?
If C << B, why did mediation failed ?
Is it because the conflict was just too old and people too bitter ?
If so, should we try to handle the case sooner ?
Is it because other people had negative impact on the mediation ?
If so, how can we protect mediation process ?
Is it because the mediator is just plain not a good mediator ?
If so, what should we do ?
Is it because one of the disputant is a troll ?
If so, should mediators lose their time and energy on trolls, or use it for issues on which they can help ? Is not providing mediation to a troll and tiring out mediators, just feeding the troll and weakening the community ?
D : On mediations which failed, how many led to request to arbitration ? (excluding those which were spontaneously sent to arbitration due to one of the disputant blewing up)
If C different of D, what happened with the failed mediations which were never followed by arbitration request ? Why were no request for arbitration done ?
E : On mediations that led to request to arbitration, how many were accepted by the AC (eventually with Jimbo help)
If C different of E, why were requests not accepted ? What happened with the failed mediations which were not accepted by arbitration ? How did the disputants took it ? Are the disputants still fighting ? How many of the disputants left wikipedia ?
F : On mediations that were accepted by arbitration after mediation stamp of approval, how many were actually arbitrated ?
--------------------
I know not the exact numbers, but here are I think a couple of relevant points
* perhaps 20 cases were handled, most did not succeed
* the great majority of cases involved at least one person widely perceived as a troll by the wikipedia community, or even a vandal. It means most cases handled were potentially just feeding the trolls, which is generally a bad idea.
* some mediators plain refused handling cases with trolls, were attacked by the trolls for refusing to "assume their duty", and requested to resign
* only the most critical cases of trolling or vandalism were accepted by arbitration or arbitrated. Dispute between regular users were not.
What my feeling is
* MC role is to handle disputes between regular users. Most of these disputes should not go to arbitration. If a mediator fails in one of these disputes, relay should be taken by another, or by a group of mediators. Because I deeply believe all regular users are accessible to logic, to reason and to discussion, hence all cases should be resolvable without arbitration. If all discussion fails, then the issue should be taken by any user or group of user available for help, with light enforcement possibly (hence, not officially by a mediator). Any user should feel like he is empowered to help.
* As it is organised, AC role is typically to handle cases related to very bad behaviors, and intent to hurt the community. It is different from regular disputes. Hence I feel that arbitration should accept to handle cases directly per request from the community, not to wait for a mediator to lose his time and energy over a troll. If a poll (grrrr) reveals that 80% of regular users think User:Bip is a vandal, then the case should go straight to arbitration. Not wander in bureaucracy corridors. If 80% of the wikipedians think User:Bip is a troll, then I also think the AC should accept the case, as it is community request. If they are too busy, then community should decide itself, and apply the sentence.
* Finally, I think troll handling is not the business of MC really. Because just accepting to take care of them is paying attention to them (which is what they want) and weakening the process entirely. It is perhaps even not the business of arbitration (though it would be nice it is). It is the business of the community on the whole. When people see there is an AC and an MC, they feel they are not empowered to gather a team and get rid of the trolls themselves.
And, no, I do not stretch the rules. I just do not like seeing community suffering because of bureaucratic paralysis :-)
Anthere...sorry for having been so long...on her way back to "streching" the rules on fr:...
PS : on the other hand, I am glad that MC and AC slow down processes that are other wise going too quickly on en: right now for my liking :-))))
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.