I've resisted taking this to the arbcom because he will turn it into a circus, and also because I
couldn't face going through all the diffs
and having the whole thing repeated yet again.
The Arbcom - "a circus?" You must be joking. Maybe if they... well... who listens to Me anymore? (Me Me Me).
I've been on the verge a couple of times of writing
to Jimbo for help, but didn't because that puts him on the spot. I've
also been on the verge of leaving, but I don't want to let someone like that drive me away.
Yes, the great founder can't go around making everybody feel better. "It hurts right here..."
Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a personal attack on me, FuelWagon
has seized his chance and has taken Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold >court for several weeks, perhaps several months, and all the >allegations will have to be responded to.
Its funny how, in contrast with my Arbcom ("you broke the rules!") Ed's violations require "defending" and so forth. Ed's famous ((soothing vibe)) is indeed something to behold, but wouldn't things work out better if the Arbcom could be trusted to actually review its cases and debate each point openly? Theres a little AGF missing I suppose...
There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For example, we could set up a small committee
of
experienced editors, a subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction, whose job it is to identify
when a user >is trolling, stalking, or harassing, and we give that committee >the power to deal with it there and then, using blocks of >increasing length for each instance of it. I
know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the benefits would greatly outweigh them.
No, this is wrong. Sorry you feel stressed out SV, but thats the way it goes. Take it with a grain of salt, as they say. Go on a wikibreak -- take a wikicruise. WPh will still be here when we're all dead and gone. Etc.
With the mandatory consoling out of the way, I have to say its funny how the real "drawback" of cabalism (according cabalists presumably) is the "accusations of cabalism," and not the cabalism itself... and the distance such represents from the Open Model (i.e. the "lets see if this works" philosophy which built wikipedia up to begin with. Sure, theres the GFDL and a strongly egalitarian ethos too...).
But I liked Fred's idea of having official prosecutors and defenders represent each case in some clear terms. Prosecutors will take complaints and sort evidence, etc. And defenders will challenge the Arbcom to hold some perspective in the application of 'da rulz.' Of course, those positions would not be paid positions either... ("but Ive spellchecked every article for the correct use of 'i before e'..." ). In anycase, Slim, you seem to be another one on the boat for [[WP:DRR|overhauling the dispute resolution process in some general way shape or form]].
True, Wikipedia 'is a project to create a free encyclopedia and not a free internet democracy,' but IMHO authoritarian measures have usually proven themselves to be mistakes. Of course, theres some tinkering going on as we speak (you can hear it if you listen closely). Question as always is: will the tinkering break the machine?
Stevertigo
:''The user name above is incorrect for [[who cares?|technical reasons]]. The correct title is stevertigo.''
--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/05, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/2/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com
wrote:
By defending SlimVirgin against what FuelWagon
HIMSELF conceded
was an "accusation" (his words), I find myself
hauled before the
arbitration committee.
For what its worth, FuelWagon has now turned
Jayjg's ArbCom candidate
question page into his own personal battleground.
FuelWagon's
"questions" span five sub-sections, have dozens of
diffs and are filled with
endless rhetorical statements. However, this
doesn't even begin to compare
with the 16 section response to his RfC a while
back: (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2).
Ed's right, the system's not working here.
I want to describe some of what FuelWagon has been doing so that people can see how hard it is to deal with this within the existing dispute-resolution structure.
FuelWagon has been harassing Ed and myself, and a couple of others to a lesser extent, since July. It started because I blocked him for 3RR and then because I made a copy edit he didn't like of an article he had edited a lot. He responded with a stream of invective and talk-page disruptive, which Ed blocked him for, and that made Ed his victim too.
I hate to think how many personal comments he has posted about Ed and me since then, but it amounts to thousands of words. He filed an RfC against me, which was deleted because he failed to show prior efforts at dispute resolution. He promptly copied and pasted it into his user subspace, so that he can still link to his various claims. He also created an "attack page" on me, where he makes a note of anything I do that he feels he can use against me. Carbonite opened an RfC against him, but he hijacked it and turned it into another attack page. He tried to intervene in the arbcom case against Ed, writing to Jimbo to have it re-opened when it had closed, then tried to have some kind of black mark put on Ed's mediation record.
It has been very upsetting to be on the receiving end of it. I tried ignoring him, responding with reason, responding firmly. I stayed away from pages he edits, but he stalked me to pages I edit and began to revert me, so that I had to either let him have his own way, or get into a revert war with him and look as bad as he is.
It changed the whole way I interact with people on Wikipedia. I found myself becoming sharper with people than I had previously been, because I was on edge all the time. I felt embarassed at having someone pursue me with accusations, because most people looking at it will think there's no smoke without fire. And yet when I tried to correct some of what he was saying, I ended up looking as silly as him, so mostly I had to let him get away with it.
Several editors and admins have intervened and tried to persuade him to stop, including Ed Poor, Ann Heneghan, El C, Carbonite, Jayjg, Bishonen, Willmcw, Marskell, Aaron Brenneman, Mel Etitis, and Viriditas.
FuelWagon's response was that he would leave me alone if I did 12 things that he listed on his talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FuelWagon&oldid=2527...
including that I make, in the "first-person narative [sic] form" an unqualified and unconditional apology in relation to the copy edit he didn't like, and he listed the various talk pages that the apology had to be posted on. He had a similar list of apologies that Ed had to make before he'd be satisfied.
He also teamed up with other known trolls like Zephram Stark, Marsden, and Vizcarra, so that a gang of people began to pursue his various victims.
I've resisted taking this to the arbcom because he will turn it into a circus, and also because I couldn't face going through all the diffs and having the whole thing repeated yet again. I've been on the verge a couple of times of writing to Jimbo for help, but didn't because that puts him on the spot. I've also been on the verge of leaving, but I don't want to let someone like that drive me away.
Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a personal attack on me, FuelWagon has seized his chance and has taken Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold court for several weeks, perhaps several months, and all the allegations will have to be responded to. The only way I can defend Ed now is to present the case that I've not been able to face putting together. It's probably going to take me a week or more to put all the diffs together in a way that gets the full force of his behavior across without being unreadable for the arbitrators.
There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For example, we could set up a small committee of experienced editors, a subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction, whose job it is to identify when a user is trolling, stalking, or harassing, and we give that committee the power to deal with it there and then, using blocks of increasing length for each instance of it. I know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the benefits would greatly outweigh them.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com