Mark Pellegrini wrote:
Erik wasn't half right when he said Plautus is not reformable. He's driving away good users (Evercat and Finlay McWalter, just to name two), and wasting enormous amounts of contributor time. If Wikipedia is to become popular on the scale that many of us would like to see, the system needs to be reformed. Just what does it take to get banned from this place?
I think the underlying problem here is that Jimbo has stepped back a bit from his role as "benevolent dictator," referring this kind of decision to the arbitration committee. The problem is that the arbitration committee can't move quickly enough to deal with problem users like this one.
One solution might be to designate a few trusted individuals as volunteer "judges" -- people to whom Jimbo in his capacity as dictator grants the authority to take action instantly, if they feel conditions warrant. The decisions of judges, of course, would be subject to review by the arbitration committee, and a judge who repeatedly abuses his authority would have it revoked.
As a matter of policy, I think "judges" should not be allowed to simultaneously sit on the arbitration committee, so that we have some separation of powers.
--Sheldon
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Mark Pellegrini wrote:
Erik wasn't half right when he said Plautus is not reformable. He's driving away good users (Evercat and Finlay McWalter, just to name two), and wasting enormous amounts of contributor time. If Wikipedia is to become popular on the scale that many of us would like to see, the system needs to be reformed. Just what does it take to get banned from this place?
I think the underlying problem here is that Jimbo has stepped back a bit from his role as "benevolent dictator," referring this kind of decision to the arbitration committee. The problem is that the arbitration committee can't move quickly enough to deal with problem users like this one.
One solution might be to designate a few trusted individuals as volunteer "judges" -- people to whom Jimbo in his capacity as dictator grants the authority to take action instantly, if they feel conditions warrant. The decisions of judges, of course, would be subject to review by the arbitration committee, and a judge who repeatedly abuses his authority would have it revoked.
As a matter of policy, I think "judges" should not be allowed to simultaneously sit on the arbitration committee, so that we have some separation of powers.
Well, if this is done, I'm not sure why we'd really need the arbitration committee. Just to rubber-stamp judge decisions?
I'd feel a little more comfortable with a more streamlined arbitration committee, which would basically be your judge idea but with multiple people voting, and a lag-time of a few days (I don't think having someone unbanned for, say, 3-4 days is the end of the world---it's the 2-3 weeks that's the problem). But there's understandably tension between "the arbitration committee should publicize at length the rationale for its decisions" and "the arbitration committee should work quickly". There's only so many in-depth decisions that a group of volunteers are going to write per week.
I hope the new edit-war policy will actually get rid of some of the immediate problem, because anyone will be able to temp-ban people who violate it.
-Mark
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 07:43, Delirium wrote:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> Mark Pellegrini wrote: > >> Erik wasn't half right when he said Plautus is not reformable. He's >> driving >> away good users (Evercat and Finlay McWalter, just to name two), and >> wasting >> enormous amounts of contributor time. If Wikipedia is to become >> popular on >> the scale that many of us would like to see, the system needs to be >> reformed. Just what does it take to get banned from this place? > > > I think the underlying problem here is that Jimbo has stepped back a > bit from his role as "benevolent dictator," referring this kind of > decision to the arbitration committee. The problem is that the > arbitration committee can't move quickly enough to deal with problem > users like this one. > > One solution might be to designate a few trusted individuals as > volunteer "judges" -- people to whom Jimbo in his capacity as dictator > grants the authority to take action instantly, if they feel conditions > warrant. The decisions of judges, of course, would be subject to > review by the arbitration committee, and a judge who repeatedly abuses > his authority would have it revoked. > > As a matter of policy, I think "judges" should not be allowed to > simultaneously sit on the arbitration committee, so that we have some > separation of powers.
Well, if this is done, I'm not sure why we'd really need the arbitration committee. Just to rubber-stamp judge decisions?
I'd feel a little more comfortable with a more streamlined arbitration committee, which would basically be your judge idea but with multiple people voting, and a lag-time of a few days (I don't think having someone unbanned for, say, 3-4 days is the end of the world---it's the 2-3 weeks that's the problem). But there's understandably tension between "the arbitration committee should publicize at length the rationale for its decisions" and "the arbitration committee should work quickly". There's only so many in-depth decisions that a group of volunteers are going to write per week.
I hope the new edit-war policy will actually get rid of some of the immediate problem, because anyone will be able to temp-ban people who violate it.
-Mark
First a confession. I very nearly blocked Plautus Satire, without even reviewing any of his edits. None of you can punish me more than I punish myself for this. The desire to block Plautus was mostly motivated by reading about users I respect feeling pain at his remaining on wikipedia, and a wish to relieve that pain; but a new-found appreciation of my deficiency at fighting vandalism was also a minor factor.
Nevertheless, that was a deplorable motivation for such an act, and I am most ashamed at myself for even contemplating it.
After some soul-searching, I can only offer the following recommendation:
Change the arbitration process so that once the committee decides to hear a case for banning, the ban takes effect immediately, and the decision is about whether to overturn the ban, or not.
Even if this is an imperfect solution, and will have real negative effects, I honestly think it is the realistic option most likely to effect the changes in the wikipedia working environment ambience we all devoutly wish.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Nevertheless, that was a deplorable motivation for such an act, and I am most ashamed at myself for even contemplating it.
Don't be ashamed for that. You speak to the story of my life for the last year. On several occassions, I nearly went on a rampage of banning with the sole criteria for a ban being that I was sick of hearing about someone, right or wrong.
To answer something Erik said earlier -- I have no plans at all to be running an asylum. This is a serious encyclopedia project. We *do* have to make our changes conservatively and slowly, so as to make sure that we preserve our open spirit to the maximal degree possible.
But some people are just not suitable for editing here, and that's just a simple brute fact.
--Jimbo