---------- From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 08:58:24 -0600 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wik and a not-quite-proposal for constitutional change
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 06:24:22 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik and a not-quite-proposal for constitutional change
Fred Bauder wrote:
I can't believe he left on that account. I think it was more the general athmosphere. The process with Wik will probably go for several rounds and drag on for 6 months. This is linked to the substantial support system Wik has among other users many of who would rebel on the other side if the arbitrators were seen to deal pre-emptively with him.
Where is that support system? Who supports him? Can they be encouraged to pressure him into better behavior?
Wik is relatively popular and people came forward and defended him. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik/Evidence #Evidence_in_favour_of_Wik [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Evidence]] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik#Statemen ts_by_others [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik]]
The decision in the first Wik case included the following:
3. The above three findings nothwithstanding, we do acknowledge that Wik has been a long-time and prolific contributor to Wikipedia, and that a great many of his edits that did not involve edit wars constitute valuable contributions to the encyclopedia.
Accepted 7-2, with one de facto abstention.
See: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik]]
Certainly Wik's supporters could put their energy into working with Wik instead of supporting him in his quarrels.
I don't see any reason for the process to go on for several *more* rounds and for 6 *more* months. At some point, very soon, he just needs to be banned, and that's that.
This is just my prediction and is based on the, hopefully false, assumption that Wik will just keep on with his aggressive behavior and we can look forward to Wik3 and Wik4. Most of the arbitrators do not share my pessimism and are proposing relatively mild sanctions for this round.
At some point, very soon, he just needs to be banned, and that's that.
There seems to be substantial disagreement with this conclusion. I think those who disagree need to come forward with some theory of change that would avoid coming to this pass. I fear the only theory out there now is because he does so much "good" we ought to be willing to live with whatever harm he does.
I share the concerns that people have expressed about the speed (or lack thereof) of our current processes. I do not have a good idea for a solution, but I think that quickpolls do offer us one promising alternative, one that is currently growing "organically" because it works.
Because of the support someone like Wik has, quickpolls are generally inconclusive. It is a spiderweb that works good on flies but hawks fly through.
I'm not (quite) making a proposal here, but just tossing out an idea that I've been mulling over for a few days.
We could change the role of the arbitration committee to be more of a 'Board of Appeals'. The purpose of the board of appeals would be to potentially overturn decisions made by quickpolls. Then quickpolls could be used for rapid banning, and people who feel that they have been unjustly banned could appeal to the board of appeals.
The actual results at quickpolls are not that good, indeed the process is often abused for use in petty quarrels. see [[Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive]]
The debate on [[Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls]] may eventually be productive but is quite involved and inconclusive as it stands now.
The issue of burden of proof would not change. That is to say, the appeals board, as with the current arbitration committee, would be obliged to approach each case with an 'innocent until proven guilty' mentality. Their range of options as to actions to take would remain the same.
What would be different is how users are dealt with during the intermediate period between the trouble starting and final adjudication. If a quickpoll indicates a ban, the user is banned unless and until the appeal is successful.
This is a substantial increase in penalty, from a 24 hour ban to an ban which whill stretch on til there is a decision from the arbitrators, who already seem to be stretched a bit.
A successful appeal might not overturn the quickban, exactly, but rather be our institutional method of accepting a person's promise to change their behavior in specific ways.
Legitimate appeals might be "I didn't do it," or "I did it, but it wasn't against the rules," or "I did it, and I'm sorry, I won't do it again."
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l