I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jimbo needs to officially sanction our revert policy and sysops should be allowed to ban users for 24 hours if they violate it.
After all I've laid out - you want to ban him for a mere 24 hours?
Allan-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jimbo needs to officially sanction our revert policy and sysops should be allowed to ban users for 24 hours if they violate it.
After all I've laid out - you want to ban him for a mere 24 hours?
I want to ban him for 24 hours every time he gets into an edit war. Hopefully, that way he will learn that he has to use the discussion page instead of trying to bully people into preferring his version.
As for a permanent ban, I think a quick route to the arbitration committee should exist. But keep in mind that for a ban to be effective, the other person needs to be at least somewhat sane. There are cases like Michael or 142.177, mentally diseased individuals who will not be deterred by a ban and operate under such a wide range of IP addresses that a complete IP ban would affect many legitimate users. There are good reasons to believe that we keep dealing with the same people under different names. It may be more effective to integrate them into a community in some way.
The other thing we need is a clearly defined decision making process. I'm thinking about a [[Wikipedia:]] page which defines recommended discussion periods for minor and major issues. After the discussion period any user would be allowed to call for a binding vote. I want to get Jimbo out of the loop for most binding decision, not because I don't trust him but because he simply can't keep up with making critical decisions in a 500K article 50 language project.
I hope you will reconsider your decision to leave the project and work with me in establishing these required norms and policies.
All best,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
I want to get Jimbo out of the loop for most binding decision, not because I don't trust him but because he simply can't keep up with making critical decisions in a 500K article 50 language project.
Everyone should already know, but I agree with Erik completely. I can't even keep up with everything going on in 'en' land, even though I spend at least 30 hours a week reading emails and studying arguments on talk pages, etc.
I hope you will reconsider your decision to leave the project and work with me in establishing these required norms and policies.
Yes, agreed! Allen, don't go. We need level heads.
--Jimbo
At 01:14 AM 2/23/2004 +0000, Allan Crossman wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jimbo needs to officially sanction our revert policy and sysops should be allowed to ban users for 24 hours if they violate it.
After all I've laid out - you want to ban him for a mere 24 hours?
Hopefully that means _every_ time they violate it.
I wouldn't exactly say I'm mad as hell, but I'm certainly nonplussed over how the Wikipedia system bends so far over backwards to be "nice" to incorrigibly disruptive people like this. Surely at some point the "cost" in driving away other contributors who can't stand working with them must be outweighing the "benefit" of making sure we don't accidentally ban participants who could potentially be valuable contributors some time down the road? Not to mention the sheer amount of work some of these users create in cleaning up after them.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I wouldn't exactly say I'm mad as hell, but I'm certainly nonplussed over how the Wikipedia system bends so far over backwards to be "nice" to incorrigibly disruptive people like this. Surely at some point the "cost" in driving away other contributors who can't stand working with them must be outweighing the "benefit" of making sure we don't accidentally ban participants who could potentially be valuable contributors some time down the road? Not to mention the sheer amount of work some of these users create in cleaning up after them.
Well, there is a bit more to it than that, but your point is a very valid one.
The main thing that I would add is the perhaps ironic issue that there are unintended consequences to things like bans that may actually generate *more* strife. The peace we seek could be illusory if we change the culture away from co-operation and love towards crime and punishment.
Some people are just mentally unbalanced. Effectively dealing with them will always be challenging. Keep them around, well, that's not really a live option, they're lunatics. Ban them, well, that's not really always going to work either, since they just create new accounts, different ips, come in through proxies. We'll never have a state of perfect peace.
So the question becomes finding the right balance to minimize harm.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Some people are just mentally unbalanced.
Some???? Only some??? :)
Effectively dealing with them will always be challenging. Keep them around, well, that's not really a live option, they're lunatics. Ban them, well, that's not really always going to work either, since they just create new accounts, different ips, come in through proxies. We'll never have a state of perfect peace.
I am concerned with what banned lunatics say about us outside Wikipedia.
I have seen many derogatory comments on Slashdot :(
So the question becomes finding the right balance to minimize harm.
--Jimbo
Yes.
--Optim
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Optim wrote:
I am concerned with what banned lunatics say about us outside Wikipedia.
I have seen many derogatory comments on Slashdot :(
I hope they spell the name right. :-)
It is often said that bad publicity is better than no publicity.
Ec