Would that were true. But should you step on the toes of certain editors, you would be auto-reverted over and over again if you even tried to so much as change a comma, and the person doing all the reverting would be allowed to get away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist because "they're a valuable contributor." RickK Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: But on Wikipedia, everyone is free to edit any article, including those who are "politically incorrect". Fred --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

I respect what the Arbitration Committee is trying to do, but I have a distinct lack of respect about the way they're going about it. User JRR Trollkien (who, it is increasingly clear, is either a reincarnation of a previously permanently-banned user, or so close to him as not to make a difference) was blocked by an administrator before he had made 20 edits. He has now racked up 1500, which will someday have to be gone through, each one, in an effort to remove the introduced crap, due in large part to the fact that it has taken: a) over a month to even get the Arbitration Committee to accept this case; b) two months and counting while it's been sitting in Arbitration Committee being mulled over; c) at least a month of which was caused by some sort of crazy departure from the case itself ("JRR Trollkien is an offensive name". Where did that come from? Why was that even put forth?) The end effect of the Arbitration Committee so far is that virtually no users have been blocked (with the notable exception of Wik, who should have been blocked almost a *year* ago anyway). It would be an understatement to say that I'm not pleased with current affairs. Several other valuable users have left because of this. The end effect is that serious contributors are leaving this place to let the rest of us play with the trolls. All due to an apparent distinct inability to use common sense.

Indeed. Most of them for a symbolic 24 hours. This is fine for regular contributors who occasionally go off the deep end, but that's not what most of the cases have involved. Wik's ban is over now, the only reason he's still gone is because he left on his own. Meanwhile Gohde and "Irismeister" are still up to their old tricks, exactly as before arbitration. No, I am saying that the concept of an AC has been tried, and does not work. I don't consider this to be the fault of the AC or any of the members of it, rather a problem with overall structure, confusion with regard to the amount of authority it holds, etc. This is a good idea, we've had five already in Trollkien's case, for example. As with all good ideas, though, it never seems to get implemented (didn't we first see this proposal months ago?).

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JRR_Trollki… Oh there's a normal procedure, that actually works? I must have missed that; what is it?

John Robinson wrote: I acknowledge John's concern. It is true that the AC has banned more people than Jimbo, but it is also true that there are many more trolls now than just 6 months ago. So far as I can remember, there has always been at least 1 problematic user at any point, but now, all the time, they are several. So, I am not sure the comparison is relevant. Perhaps one of the reason Jimbo gave us the hand to do that, was precisely because it was requiring him more and more time. ----- One issue is time. As you said, AC conclusion is often a very short time of banning. When this time is over, the game is on again. May I suggest that decisions taken by AC are two steps ones ? Say a case is considered by AC After a while, AC admits there is an issue, and that it is worth doing something, say banning for 1 week. The AC is important here, because we trust they make fair decisions, after they studied the case thoroughly Could not the AC take 2 decisions at the same time ? * first, immediate banning for perhaps 1 week * second, additional decision already taken for "repetition of issue". After the banning time is over, if the user starts being problematic, and is reported by xx contributors (perhaps 5 ?), the AC immediately release the second decision (perhaps 1 month banning). - Either it is applied on the spot (that means that within ONE day 5 contributors could report and the user be banned again). - Or the second decision (taken by AC perhaps 2 weeks sooner during initial arbitration) is voted by contributors (agree, disagree, no opinion) during a few days. if there is general agreement, the AC second decision is applied. ----- Second issue is transparency. I am sure people are worried and get nervous, because they do not know enough what is going on during the AC ----- Third point is evolution. I think there will be no go back in time. Structurally speaking, Wikipedia will have more and more trolls as it grows and develops and gets famous, and AS USERS BECOME MORE AND MORE PROTECTIVE TOWARD ITS CONTENT. I think some trolling cases would have less impact if people just gave it less attention. (belle définition du trollisme d'ailleurs...)

Daniel Mayer wrote: great but then... does that mean that editors will have to wait again for the AC to decide over this ? Or may it be quickly done if necessary ? Is there a risk there of a bottleneck ?

--- John Robinson <john(a)freeq.com> wrote: Wrong again: Decided on 11th Februry 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11, 2005. Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. Decided on 31st March 2004 that Irismeister would be banned from editing all pages for ten days, and banned from editing Iridology indefinitely. Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. /Paul Vogel - Decided on 10 May 2004 to ban Vogel for one year. Decided at /Wik2/Decided on 21 May 2004 that Wik shall be banned for one week and be subject to a month ban after he returns if he fails to abide by the AC's conduct rulings. Cantus and Nico shall be banned for one day for using sockpuppets. Maybe you are using some oddball form of math to reach your "most cases" statement, but I see only two users who received anything that could be called "symbolic 24 hour" bans. You obviously have either not read those cases, and/or are confusing the AC with the quickpoll process. Again, do your homework before you criticize. And as soon as he comes back the AC will decide whether or not his breaking of the terms of his week ban is enough to warrent the imposition of the month ban we already provided for in the enforcement section. I for one will vote to impose the month ban. It is fairly obvious to me that you have not even read the ruling. I do think that the AC made a mistake in not placing MrNH and Irismeister on long term probations. But those were two early cases. That is because you are mistakingly thinking of the AC as a police force. We are not and do not have the ability to control the immediate actions of others - we can only provide punishments for past actions and also say what to do if users break the terms of their probations. Cases against users take time to develop and take time to decide. Granted some cases are taking too long, but we need more committee members (one of our members has never voted in a single case and another left). Our current situation is this: We have judges but no policeman. The judicial process is supposed to be a bit slow, while police can use probable cause to arrest people on the spot. While we have the former, we do not have the latter (except in cases of obvious vandalism). So the system is only half built and should not be expected to work right yet. I believe either one of the developers (Tim maybe?) or I proposed it a while ago. IIRC some experimental code was created for it but the idea didn't seem to resonate and was dropped. If you think that idea is a good one, then support it. Hopefully others will also think it is a good idea and also support it. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Ray Saintonge wrote: I'd like to mention that fortunately, all these 1500 articles edits are not crap. Remove the crap John, but let the regular edits please.

Ban him or not on the merits of his edits. If he is adding crap, revert it, if he keeps introducing it, ban him for it. The name is an irrelevant distraction from the important thing, which is "Are his edits contributing towards building an encyclopdia". Mark --- John Robinson <john(a)freeq.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/