On Saturday 17 January 2004 06:31 pm, Delirium wrote:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he is not abating with said attacks.
Given the current state of things, it seems we have two choices here:
- Quickly get some working provisional policies for the mediation and
arbitration committee in place to deal with this issue 2) Appeal to Jimbo to handle this case, subject to input from everyone (as usual), since our dispute-resolution processes are still not put together
I'd personally prefer #1, so if the mediation committee wants to try to sort out the mess, or at least determine whether it is a mess of the sort-out-able kind, feel free. =]
My thoughts on this: I'm not hellbent on a ban or anything, but MNH has been reminded time and again of our policy of not making personal attacks. Obviously to no avail.
Also, I'm not quite sure whether the framework of mediation/arbitration is the correct one. Allow me to demonstrate by way of analogy to the legal system of most "western" countries:
There is a difference between a criminal and a civil trial. If certain laws of a society are broken, then the state will prosecute a case. If, on the other hand there is some squabble between two parties (eg. a contract dispute), then one party will seek to prosecute the other. I submit that the problem with MNH is of the former kind. It is not primarily a dispute between him and me. Or for that matter all the other people he has attacked. Rather, he is in violation of one of wikipedia's important rules: no personal attacks. I therefore think that I should not be the prosecution, but rather a witness for the prosecution. I'm not sure how this would work with the current framework. But I'd be most interrested in everyone's opinion on this matter.
Best, Sascha Noyes