So, are we going to do something about edit wars or not? What exactly is page protection going to accomplish if an individual like Wik will engage in an edit war on virtually every page they are involved in? Or per- article bans? Are we going to ban Wik from dozens of articles? Run after him wherever he goes?
I note on the arbitration for Wik that the consensus among the committee is leaning towards not handling the case of Wik directly because a 24 hour ban policy is *under discussion*. Well, that policy has been sabotaged for nonsensical reasons which could easily have been addressed by flexible language in the policy itself.
If people like Wik can engage in edit wars without serious consequences, and I on the other hand am attacked for doing what I can to intervene (as in the case of [[McFly]], where I protected the page which Wik had blanked repeatedly and - gasp - edited it afterwards), then it is clear that the Wikipedia community as a whole *wants* edit wars to happen.
Well, if you want edit wars to happen, you sure as hell are going to get edit wars. And don't expect me to hold back if someone like Wik gets into a conflict with me.
If I sound angry, that's because I am. The bullies are being protected with fallacious arguments of free speech and "WikiLove". We need enforcement here. And I'm very disappointed in Jimbo for not doing something about this issue and endlessly delaying any meaningful decision. The solution is trivial. Warn and then temporarily ban people who violate the *spirt and the letter* of the rule. There are *no* negative side- effects of such a policy.
Erik
Just hang on. The arbitration committee is apparently going to try a little bit of wet noodle on Wik, but after they all see that it just encourages him there will be some serious rethinking.
You are correct but are not being patient.
Wik is welcome to change and hopefully will, but as we move forward and if he continues with his current pattern eventually the fur will fly.
As you seem on one end of the continuum I suggest you mark time until the "masses" catch up with you.
Fred
From: erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: 13 Mar 2004 16:00:00 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Edit war policy meaningless
So, are we going to do something about edit wars or not? What exactly is page protection going to accomplish if an individual like Wik will engage in an edit war on virtually every page they are involved in? Or per- article bans? Are we going to ban Wik from dozens of articles? Run after him wherever he goes?
I note on the arbitration for Wik that the consensus among the committee is leaning towards not handling the case of Wik directly because a 24 hour ban policy is *under discussion*. Well, that policy has been sabotaged for nonsensical reasons which could easily have been addressed by flexible language in the policy itself.
If people like Wik can engage in edit wars without serious consequences, and I on the other hand am attacked for doing what I can to intervene (as in the case of [[McFly]], where I protected the page which Wik had blanked repeatedly and - gasp - edited it afterwards), then it is clear that the Wikipedia community as a whole *wants* edit wars to happen.
Well, if you want edit wars to happen, you sure as hell are going to get edit wars. And don't expect me to hold back if someone like Wik gets into a conflict with me.
If I sound angry, that's because I am. The bullies are being protected with fallacious arguments of free speech and "WikiLove". We need enforcement here. And I'm very disappointed in Jimbo for not doing something about this issue and endlessly delaying any meaningful decision. The solution is trivial. Warn and then temporarily ban people who violate the *spirt and the letter* of the rule. There are *no* negative side- effects of such a policy.
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Erik Moeller wrote:
So, are we going to do something about edit wars or not? What exactly is page protection going to accomplish if an individual like Wik will engage in an edit war on virtually every page they are involved in? Or per- article bans? Are we going to ban Wik from dozens of articles? Run after him wherever he goes?
Page protection accomplishes nothing. In fact, I'd say if anything it encourages edit wars.
I note on the arbitration for Wik that the consensus among the committee is leaning towards not handling the case of Wik directly because a 24 hour ban policy is *under discussion*. Well, that policy has been sabotaged for nonsensical reasons which could easily have been addressed by flexible language in the policy itself.
Why don't you propose the flexible language? It seems to me that flexible language would make things worse. Users can already be banned for clear vandalism. There's no need for page protection when a user can be banned instead.
If people like Wik can engage in edit wars without serious consequences, and I on the other hand am attacked for doing what I can to intervene (as in the case of [[McFly]], where I protected the page which Wik had blanked repeatedly and - gasp - edited it afterwards), then it is clear that the Wikipedia community as a whole *wants* edit wars to happen.
Speaking for myself, I don't understand what the problem is with edit wars in the first place. The problem isn't the edit wars, the problem is the lack of discussion. That's why I, and many others, support the revert guideline, *as a guideline*, but agree that there are cases where there simply is nothing to discuss.
Another issue, only tangentially related to edit wars, is what to do while a dispute is being resolved. The general feeling is that the page should be kept in the state it was before the dispute until the dispute is resolved. Perhaps this could be made into policy, or at least a guideline. But clearly there are situations where this is not an acceptable solution. For instance, blatantly incorrect contributions which didn't get caught for a while, but which is being held on to by a certain person or group of people. These are complicated issues, and just saying "don't revert, or we'll ban you" is much too simple of a proposed solution.
Anthony
i.e. to discard recent changes by, maybe, vicious guests and to make the page back an early state?
Thank you!
Cheers, Collin
I 've got the answer here :-)
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Rev erting_a_page_to_an_earlier_version
Collin
Mediation between me and Wik is now approaching a month. None of our procedure mean anything if there's no sense of urgency.
RickK
Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote: So, are we going to do something about edit wars or not? What exactly is page protection going to accomplish if an individual like Wik will engage in an edit war on virtually every page they are involved in? Or per- article bans? Are we going to ban Wik from dozens of articles? Run after him wherever he goes?
I note on the arbitration for Wik that the consensus among the committee is leaning towards not handling the case of Wik directly because a 24 hour ban policy is *under discussion*. Well, that policy has been sabotaged for nonsensical reasons which could easily have been addressed by flexible language in the policy itself.
If people like Wik can engage in edit wars without serious consequences, and I on the other hand am attacked for doing what I can to intervene (as in the case of [[McFly]], where I protected the page which Wik had blanked repeatedly and - gasp - edited it afterwards), then it is clear that the Wikipedia community as a whole *wants* edit wars to happen.
Well, if you want edit wars to happen, you sure as hell are going to get edit wars. And don't expect me to hold back if someone like Wik gets into a conflict with me.
If I sound angry, that's because I am. The bullies are being protected with fallacious arguments of free speech and "WikiLove". We need enforcement here. And I'm very disappointed in Jimbo for not doing something about this issue and endlessly delaying any meaningful decision. The solution is trivial. Warn and then temporarily ban people who violate the *spirt and the letter* of the rule. There are *no* negative side- effects of such a policy.
Erik
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
Mediation between me and Wik is now approaching a month. None of our procedure mean anything if there's no sense of urgency.
There is no mediation in progress between you and Wik. As you reported to the mailing list last month (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010756.html), Wik refused mediation.
[[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]] explains that the process is voluntary. The committee can not force Wik into mediation with you.
Perhaps you meant to refer to arbitration, not mediation? If so, the latest discussions on that appear to be at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Decision]].
Angela.
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
Arbitration, mediation, whatever. It's all nonsense since it means absolutely nothing. Whatever it is that is supposedly happening is not being done.
RickK
Angela sloog77@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Rick wrote:
Mediation between me and Wik is now approaching a month. None of our procedure mean anything if there's no sense of urgency.
There is no mediation in progress between you and Wik. As you reported to the mailing list last month (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010756.html), Wik refused mediation.
[[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]] explains that the process is voluntary. The committee can not force Wik into mediation with you.
Perhaps you meant to refer to arbitration, not mediation? If so, the latest discussions on that appear to be at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Decision]].
Angela.
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
RickK, there have been more than 20 people who have been tring to put a lot of work, setting these two arbitration and mediation things in the past two months. Spending two months of hard and not rewarding work, only for the purpose to improve the relationships between editors in this project. We are not in any way perfect, but we really try our best. We love feedback, but we prefer positive feedback. If you feel like offering criticism, please do it, but list facts, list problems with links, and give us some detailed ideas for improvement. Please.
Rick a écrit:
Arbitration, mediation, whatever. It's all nonsense since it means absolutely nothing. Whatever it is that is supposedly happening is not being done.
RickK
But Erik, you are trying to have edit wars solution be based uniquely on 2 or 3 wik-like people, while there are many other very regular and sometimes very respected contributors, who actually sometimes get into edit war and reversion war themselves in the heat of the moment.
For Wik-like people, yes, a temporary ban may be a relief. Now, for regular editors, I think it is a bad solution.
Suggestion : What about a different policy depending on whether editors are listed as "frequently involved in wars" people ?
For those "problematic users", for example, though not mandatory, any 3 reverts session could grant either softban or page protection or slow-editing for 24 hours. Without the sysop doing the ban or the protection or the slow edit having to justify himself or to argue he did not commit sysop abuse.
However, none of these three actions would be mandatory. People could still consider applying one or another, depending on the person.
Now, for people not listed as "problematic", only page protection could be applied, eventually, after a certain number of reverts.
As for listing people problematic, I can just suggest a poll. If over 75% wikipedians agree a person is problematic, well, he may undergo harder punishement than others.
This will allow people like Wik to be blocked after 3 reverts. So, satisfy you and others. This will allow regular users only to see only article protection occuring for 3 reverts in most cases, so might satisfy all those against the ban for 3 revert rule. This should satisfy both those willing to stop editors like Wik, and those saying he is part of the project. This will sent him the signal "better behavior" -> "lighter punishment"
Erik Moeller a écrit:
So, are we going to do something about edit wars or not? What exactly is page protection going to accomplish if an individual like Wik will engage in an edit war on virtually every page they are involved in? Or per- article bans? Are we going to ban Wik from dozens of articles? Run after him wherever he goes?
I note on the arbitration for Wik that the consensus among the committee is leaning towards not handling the case of Wik directly because a 24 hour ban policy is *under discussion*. Well, that policy has been sabotaged for nonsensical reasons which could easily have been addressed by flexible language in the policy itself.
If people like Wik can engage in edit wars without serious consequences, and I on the other hand am attacked for doing what I can to intervene (as in the case of [[McFly]], where I protected the page which Wik had blanked repeatedly and - gasp - edited it afterwards), then it is clear that the Wikipedia community as a whole *wants* edit wars to happen.
Well, if you want edit wars to happen, you sure as hell are going to get edit wars. And don't expect me to hold back if someone like Wik gets into a conflict with me.
If I sound angry, that's because I am. The bullies are being protected with fallacious arguments of free speech and "WikiLove". We need enforcement here. And I'm very disappointed in Jimbo for not doing something about this issue and endlessly delaying any meaningful decision. The solution is trivial. Warn and then temporarily ban people who violate the *spirt and the letter* of the rule. There are *no* negative side- effects of such a policy.
Erik
On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 04:56, Anthere wrote:
But Erik, you are trying to have edit wars solution be based uniquely on 2 or 3 wik-like people, while there are many other very regular and sometimes very respected contributors, who actually sometimes get into edit war and reversion war themselves in the heat of the moment.
For Wik-like people, yes, a temporary ban may be a relief. Now, for regular editors, I think it is a bad solution.
Suggestion : What about a different policy depending on whether editors are listed as "frequently involved in wars" people ?
For those "problematic users", for example, though not mandatory, any 3 reverts session could grant either softban or page protection or slow-editing for 24 hours. Without the sysop doing the ban or the protection or the slow edit having to justify himself or to argue he did not commit sysop abuse.
However, none of these three actions would be mandatory. People could still consider applying one or another, depending on the person.
Now, for people not listed as "problematic", only page protection could be applied, eventually, after a certain number of reverts.
As for listing people problematic, I can just suggest a poll. If over 75% wikipedians agree a person is problematic, well, he may undergo harder punishement than others.
This will allow people like Wik to be blocked after 3 reverts. So, satisfy you and others. This will allow regular users only to see only article protection occuring for 3 reverts in most cases, so might satisfy all those against the ban for 3 revert rule.
Sorry Anthere, but you are wrong. The majority of those who oppose the three reverts policy are just those problematic users, so they probably would not be satisfied with a policy that would still have their warring thwarted.
This should satisfy both those willing to stop editors like Wik, and those saying he is part of the project. This will sent him the signal "better behavior" -> "lighter punishment"
This would also create a new class of users: "Explicitly Untrusted Users". Not a good idea IMHO. Might just drive users like lir to just regress into multiple personality mode.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit:
On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 04:56, Anthere wrote:
But Erik, you are trying to have edit wars solution be based uniquely on 2 or 3 wik-like people, while there are many other very regular and sometimes very respected contributors, who actually sometimes get into edit war and reversion war themselves in the heat of the moment.
For Wik-like people, yes, a temporary ban may be a relief. Now, for regular editors, I think it is a bad solution.
Suggestion : What about a different policy depending on whether editors are listed as "frequently involved in wars" people ?
For those "problematic users", for example, though not mandatory, any 3 reverts session could grant either softban or page protection or slow-editing for 24 hours. Without the sysop doing the ban or the protection or the slow edit having to justify himself or to argue he did not commit sysop abuse.
However, none of these three actions would be mandatory. People could still consider applying one or another, depending on the person.
Now, for people not listed as "problematic", only page protection could be applied, eventually, after a certain number of reverts.
As for listing people problematic, I can just suggest a poll. If over 75% wikipedians agree a person is problematic, well, he may undergo harder punishement than others.
This will allow people like Wik to be blocked after 3 reverts. So, satisfy you and others. This will allow regular users only to see only article protection occuring for 3 reverts in most cases, so might satisfy all those against the ban for 3 revert rule.
Sorry Anthere, but you are wrong. The majority of those who oppose the three reverts policy are just those problematic users, so they probably would not be satisfied with a policy that would still have their warring thwarted.
Yes ? I list below those opposed to this policy, that you say are mostly problematic user
1. Ruhrjungy 2. Tannin 3. Anthony DiPierro 4. Taku 5. Wik 6. Martin: 7. Jamesday 8. James F. 9. Lirath Q. Pynnor 10. Seth Ilys 20:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) 11. Angela 12. ugen64 13. User:Anthere.
I agree there are problematic users here. Not only though.
This should satisfy both those willing to stop editors like Wik, and those saying he is part of the project. This will sent him the signal "better behavior" -> "lighter punishment"
This would also create a new class of users: "Explicitly Untrusted Users". Not a good idea IMHO. Might just drive users like lir to just regress into multiple personality mode.
Very true. But, I prefer proposing something controversial in an attempt to get things going on, perhaps raise new ideas, rather than them proceeding toward a solution I disagree with.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.
Anthere wrote:
But Erik, you are trying to have edit wars solution be based uniquely on 2 or 3 wik-like people, while there are many other very regular and sometimes very respected contributors, who actually sometimes get into edit war and reversion war themselves in the heat of the moment.
Of course. And these are now and will always be a minority. The interminable debates over ways to deal with these people are completely out of proportion to their importance, and are far more harmful than what this handful could ever be. The Paris Commune was overrun because the communards did not know when to stop debating among themselves.
I can support something like the three revert concept as a guideline, but certainly not as a rule, and even less as an enforceable rule. We need to begin trusting users again. That was a key factor in Wikipedia's growth. If Wik or some other identified person is a persistent problem user then let's deal with it without inventing more new rules to plague the average user. The bad characters will more likely than not be multiply offensive, and decisons can be based on weighing a variety of factors rather than literal rules.
Once an understanding has been reached, someone with the authority needs to accept the responsibilities for following through.
Ec