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)