We all know the policy, or should. Because Jimbo has said it many times.
The best way to resolve a conflict, is by talking it out. Sometimes, other users can contribute to a resolution by mediating, but this doesn't always work.
If a party to a conflict so desires, he may request that Jimbo consider blocking the other user's login-name. Such a block could be temporary or permanent.
I do not consider _suggesting_ that Jimbo order a username block to be a "threat" (as one user put it) or an "abuse of sysop powers" as a couple of others put it. Saying, "stop reverting my changes, or I will personally ban you" MIGHT be a threat or an abuse of authority, but that isn't what Erik did. (He might have said he wanted to - as I did a week or 2 ago in a similar context - but "wanting" and "threatening" and "doing" are all different.)
Anyway, I'm hoping this will all blow over, so no one has to ring Jimbo's cell phone in the middle of that wedding. This should be a joyous time in his life. Let's make it so.
Uncle Ed
From Poor, Edmund W
I do not consider _suggesting_ that Jimbo order a username block to be
a
"threat" (as one user put it) or an "abuse of sysop powers" as a
couple
of others put it.
Why don't you consider it a threat? A threat is "an expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment." Suggesting that Jimbo order a username block is an expression of an intention to inflict punishment. It's not as extreme a threat as "I WILL BAN YOU" but it's a threat nonetheless.
Saying, "stop reverting my changes, or I will personally ban you" MIGHT be a threat or an abuse of authority, but
that
isn't what Erik did. (He might have said he wanted to - as I did a
week
or 2 ago in a similar context - but "wanting" and "threatening" and "doing" are all different.)
Erik explicitly disambiguated this question, stating that he was serious about issuing a banning request.
His apology put things on the right track, but let's not try to rewrite history here.
The Cunctator wrote:
Erik explicitly disambiguated this question, stating that he was serious about issuing a banning request.
One has to distinguish between a ban and a banning request. Banning someone in these circumstances would be a unilateral act, and as such completely lacking in social grace. "Issuing [sic!] a banning request" suggests initiating an established process that anyone can do, though often with very remote chances of success.
Ec
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
We all know the policy, or should. Because Jimbo has said it many times.
The best way to resolve a conflict, is by talking it out. Sometimes, other users can contribute to a resolution by mediating, but this doesn't always work.
If a party to a conflict so desires, he may request that Jimbo consider blocking the other user's login-name. Such a block could be temporary or permanent.
I believe that the procedure is supposed to be to contact Jimbo privately. I will admit that I myself did not do this with the matter of User:Mediator, but that seemed a special case for a number of reasons.
In any case, asking for a ban is a weighty matter. None of us should go about it casually, nor in the heat of a dispute. This is especially true for established contributors.
Louis
From: Louis Kyu Won Ryu
I believe that the procedure is supposed to be to contact Jimbo privately. I will admit that I myself did not do this with the matter of User:Mediator, but that seemed a special case for a number of
reasons.
The requests should be made publicly. Transparency in procedure is necessary to a healthy Wikipedia community.
The Cunctator wrote:
From: Louis Kyu Won Ryu
I believe that the procedure is supposed to be to contact Jimbo privately. I will admit that I myself did not do this with the matter of User:Mediator, but that seemed a special case for a number of
reasons.
The requests should be made publicly. Transparency in procedure is necessary to a healthy Wikipedia community.
Of course. The community needs to find ways to solve its own problems without running to daddy crying like a little kid about every little complaint.
Ec
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com
The best way to resolve a conflict, is by talking it out. Sometimes, other users can contribute to a resolution by mediating, but this doesn't always work.
Well, what about the case in point -- highly unusual --where a develper and a sysop, both highly intelligent and articulate -- who both needlessly caused and contribute to an enourmous and unnecessary ruckus --that the community has no interest in seeing escalate.
Erik's threatening a ban on JT comes in part due to his belief (mistaken) that his position with Wikipedia is more secure than JT's --in part due to his developer access. Erik came to his senses quick, and Ed, you were right to see Erik's comment as just blowing steam... (as I was about your comment a few weeks ago ;)
I suggested the idea that people (even devrs) can be banned from editing a particular page. Even if its only a soft-security ban -- allowing sysops to revert the page if either one of the banned polarist prevaricators edits the page.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
I suggested the idea that people (even devrs) can be banned from editing a particular page. Even if its only a soft-security ban -- allowing sysops to revert the page if either one of the banned polarist prevaricators edits the page.
~S~
A brief respite certainly has merit, but is not a solution by itself.
The greater problem is the absence of a dispute-resolution culture and process. Most Wikipedians are more interested in being right than being facilitative, and those who visit a disputed article are often more interested in making some of their own edits to get the article "right," or in making a clever comment on the talk page, than in helping others get along and ensuring fairness.
Louis
Stevertigo-
Erik's threatening a ban on JT comes in part due to his belief (mistaken) that his position with Wikipedia is more secure than JT's --in part due to his developer access.
That is a completely nonsensical explanation of my motives. It had nothing to do with "developer access". Please stop pouring fuel into the fire.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
That is a completely nonsensical explanation of my motives. It had nothing to do with "developer access". Please stop pouring fuel into the fire.
Well, OK :)
But in my defense, I qualified the above statement with not just one "part of", but two "part of" -- so, Although *half of my post was about a theory that your motives "may have been 'in part of a part' responsible for your statement. I at least qualified it... somewhat.
So let the lesson not be lost: My admitted bad example should maybe... perhaps... have resonance with other matters, eh?
~S~ ;-) <==Extra gratuitious smiley, for sarcastic (not cynical) effect.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com