I agree with Erik in virtually everything he says. The AC process is too slow. It's not the arbitrators fault, anything done by a committee is always very slow. But we _must_ fix it. I cannot believe we can lose a user like Tannin.
Theresa
I can't believe he left on that account. I think it was more the general athmosphere. The process with Wik will probably go for several rounds and drag on for 6 months. This is linked to the substantial support system Wik has among other users many of who would rebel on the other side if the arbitrators were seen to deal pre-emptively with him.
Fred
From: "KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 08:29:47 +0100 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Two users left because of Wik
I agree with Erik in virtually everything he says. The AC process is too slow. It's not the arbitrators fault, anything done by a committee is always very slow. But we _must_ fix it. I cannot believe we can lose a user like Tannin.
Theresa _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote
I can't believe he left on that account. I think it was more the general athmosphere. The process with Wik will probably go for several rounds and drag on for 6 months. This is linked to the substantial support system Wik has among other users many of who would rebel on the other side if the arbitrators were seen to deal pre-emptively with him.
Yes it was the general atmosphere, but it's important not to use that as an excuse to be defeatist. Wik featured as a big part of that general atmosphere. Tannin said on his user page:
: I got so bloody tired of seeing so much good work destroyed by a tiny : minority of well-known problem users that I quit.[...]
: I guess that one of the things that really brought this home : to me was that, quite by chance, I've had to spend a good : deal of time working on some other multi-contributor : cooperative web-based projects lately. Somewhere along the : line I had forgotten what it was like to work with people : who want to work with you toward a common goal, as opposed : to putting up with the disruptions and distortions and : evasions and downright lies that we get so used to here. : (You want examples? Try Wik or Nico or RK. There are others : of course, but those three will do to illustrate my point. : It's easy to tell who they are. Just ask yourself if User X : does more harm to the project, or good for it.)
: Maybe one day the Wikipedia community will get its act : together and do something to encourage people who actually : contribute to the encyclopedia instead of pandering to the : trolls and the fanatics and the lunatics. Maybe.
The arbitration committee does not have to be like Jimbo; always hesitant to act except in the most egregious cases. The community will squabble amongst itself forever about whether users should be kept on or banned. This bickering damages the community. What I want from the arbitration committee is decisive leadership aimed at the betterment of the encyclopedia project. I don't want a legalistic process or proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Of course it's true that you can't really keep anyone out of a wiki if they're determined to circumvent technical measures. The value of leadership is to end the in-fighting, and to avoid the sense of betrayal so many Wikipedians feel when they are attacked for defending the community against a troll.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
The arbitration committee does not have to be like Jimbo; always hesitant to act except in the most egregious cases.
I agree, and I also want to lend moral support to the idea that times are changing, and times have changed. Early in the project, in order to be sure to achieve the critical mass for success, it was absolutely important (in my mind) to be as open and accepting as possible... we needed the people, even ones who were kind of a pain in the ass.
That is not as true now, and has not been as true for a long time.
There's a delicate balancing act here -- being open to newcomers is crucial for the preservation of neutrality and quality. We are a very diverse group politically and religiously and philosophically and so on, and we want to keep it that way. But even maintaining that, we could be guilty of cabalism, of being cliquish and closed, of refusing to listen to new advice that makes us uncomfortable.
At the same time, though, it must be stated that we have much less danger of that at the present time, than we have of being unbalanced in a different way, i.e. having the community become unpleasant and unco-operative over time as attrition tends to leave an increasing ratio of jerks to kindhearted, helpful, thoughtful, loving, respectful people.
The community will squabble amongst itself forever about whether users should be kept on or banned. This bickering damages the community. What I want from the arbitration committee is decisive leadership aimed at the betterment of the encyclopedia project. I don't want a legalistic process or proof beyond reasonable doubt.
What do you think of my idea of changing our "constitution" so that quickpolls can be more broadly used for temp-bans, such that the arbitration committee can be more of an appeals board?
I think what works for me about this idea is this. If 80% + 8 vote minimum of users in a 24 hour period think that someone should be banned, and then if ultimately after a couple of weeks of evidence gathering and talking to all the parties involved, the user is allowed back in, then IN THAT CASE, the punishment will *still* fit the crime, since annoying enough people to get an 80% majority for a ban certainly warrants a 2 week cooling off period at a minimum.
Of course it's true that you can't really keep anyone out of a wiki if they're determined to circumvent technical measures. The value of leadership is to end the in-fighting, and to avoid the sense of betrayal so many Wikipedians feel when they are attacked for defending the community against a troll.
That's right.
I should point out, not in support of Wik, but just by way of comment, that the great irony about Wik is that he's sort of an anti-troll troll. He claims, and I have little reason to doubt his sincerity of belief, that his annoying actions are just proper responses to various troublemakers on the site.
--Jimbo
In the Western movies the good sheriff would go after the bad guy and bring him in, throw him into the jail house, and then the court would set up a trial.
Of course, if the guy resisted the sheriff's arrest attempts, the sheriff would get rough, puching and kicking and throwing a bar stool or two around. And if the guy resisted the sheriff with a pistol, the sheriff wouls simply take out his own in faster-than-light speed (don't you love the magic of movies?) and put blow him away.
What's my point?
We don't have enforcers. We just let the robber/vandal/please-mommy-help-me-i-m-innocent-crybaby run amok while we try to get a jury pool together.
I say throw him/her in wikiJail: No edit rights, a gag order (no mailing lists), and access to ONE court appointed wikilawyer/mediator, via email only.
Then, a court date, a judge, jury, and decision within 24 hours.
If the jailed person decides to try to escape the constrains of confinement, then he/she will receive an immediate and automatic X year(s) ban. X determined by the judge.
Wikipidia editing is a Privilege, not a Right.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
This is good, for a laugh anyway. How about suspending editing for all participants in arbitration (except on the arbitration and evidence pages) until the case is decided?
Fred
From: Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 08:03:46 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Jail
In the Western movies the good sheriff would go after the bad guy and bring him in, throw him into the jail house, and then the court would set up a trial.
Of course, if the guy resisted the sheriff's arrest attempts, the sheriff would get rough, puching and kicking and throwing a bar stool or two around. And if the guy resisted the sheriff with a pistol, the sheriff wouls simply take out his own in faster-than-light speed (don't you love the magic of movies?) and put blow him away.
What's my point?
We don't have enforcers. We just let the robber/vandal/please-mommy-help-me-i-m-innocent-crybaby run amok while we try to get a jury pool together.
I say throw him/her in wikiJail: No edit rights, a gag order (no mailing lists), and access to ONE court appointed wikilawyer/mediator, via email only.
Then, a court date, a judge, jury, and decision within 24 hours.
If the jailed person decides to try to escape the constrains of confinement, then he/she will receive an immediate and automatic X year(s) ban. X determined by the judge.
Wikipidia editing is a Privilege, not a Right.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think this is consistent with my concept of using QuickPolls to temp ban users. I'm uncomfortable with giving individual sysops the power to do this sort of thing, because if we lack any sort of multi-person review of a decision until the week or two it takes the committee to act, we'll have a lot of trouble.
But if 80% and at least 8 users say to "arrest" someone, then by golly, it sounds good to me.
Additionally, I don't think it's easy to project what the results of quickpolls in such a system would be if we just base it on the quickpolls we've done so far. People's voting incentives change if the vote is for a temp ban that will be reviewed by the arbitration committee.
--Jimbo
Christopher Mahan wrote:
In the Western movies the good sheriff would go after the bad guy and bring him in, throw him into the jail house, and then the court would set up a trial.
Of course, if the guy resisted the sheriff's arrest attempts, the sheriff would get rough, puching and kicking and throwing a bar stool or two around. And if the guy resisted the sheriff with a pistol, the sheriff wouls simply take out his own in faster-than-light speed (don't you love the magic of movies?) and put blow him away.
What's my point?
We don't have enforcers. We just let the robber/vandal/please-mommy-help-me-i-m-innocent-crybaby run amok while we try to get a jury pool together.
I say throw him/her in wikiJail: No edit rights, a gag order (no mailing lists), and access to ONE court appointed wikilawyer/mediator, via email only.
Then, a court date, a judge, jury, and decision within 24 hours.
If the jailed person decides to try to escape the constrains of confinement, then he/she will receive an immediate and automatic X year(s) ban. X determined by the judge.
Wikipidia editing is a Privilege, not a Right.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
I can't believe he left on that account. I think it was more the general athmosphere. The process with Wik will probably go for several rounds and drag on for 6 months. This is linked to the substantial support system Wik has among other users many of who would rebel on the other side if the arbitrators were seen to deal pre-emptively with him.
Where is that support system? Who supports him? Can they be encouraged to pressure him into better behavior?
I don't see any reason for the process to go on for several *more* rounds and for 6 *more* months. At some point, very soon, he just needs to be banned, and that's that.
I share the concerns that people have expressed about the speed (or lack thereof) of our current processes. I do not have a good idea for a solution, but I think that quickpolls do offer us one promising alternative, one that is currently growing "organically" because it works.
I'm not (quite) making a proposal here, but just tossing out an idea that I've been mulling over for a few days.
We could change the role of the arbitration committee to be more of a 'Board of Appeals'. The purpose of the board of appeals would be to potentially overturn decisions made by quickpolls. Then quickpolls could be used for rapid banning, and people who feel that they have been unjustly banned could appeal to the board of appeals.
The issue of burden of proof would not change. That is to say, the appeals board, as with the current arbitration committee, would be obliged to approach each case with an 'innocent until proven guilty' mentality. Their range of options as to actions to take would remain the same.
What would be different is how users are dealt with during the intermediate period between the trouble starting and final adjudication. If a quickpoll indicates a ban, the user is banned unless and until the appeal is successful.
A successful appeal might not overturn the quickban, exactly, but rather be our institutional method of accepting a person's promise to change their behavior in specific ways.
Legitimate appeals might be "I didn't do it," or "I did it, but it wasn't against the rules," or "I did it, and I'm sorry, I won't do it again."
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote
Where is that support system? Who supports him? Can they be encouraged to pressure him into better behavior?
I think finger-pointing is not a good idea in this case. Let's say that he has apologists, who may very well be acting in perfectly good faith and be valued community members in their own right.
I don't see any reason for the process to go on for several *more* rounds and for 6 *more* months. At some point, very soon, he just needs to be banned, and that's that.
Not something I'd have any personal problem with - asocial and legalistic defines what a wiki _is not_; and it is hard to deny that is what Wik is, whatever else might be said in his defence.
I would find it difficult to take the inevitable triumphalism of some of those who have been in conflict (as I have) with Wik. If Wik is to go, let it be for clearly right reasons, not what anyone thinks of as wrong opinions.
Has anyone suggested Wik simply be denied watchlist rights? With the servers groaning, a watchlist of 10000+ pages is surely greedy for resources.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote
Where is that support system? Who supports him? Can they be encouraged to pressure him into better behavior?
I think finger-pointing is not a good idea in this case. Let's say that he has apologists, who may very well be acting in perfectly good faith and be valued community members in their own right.
Oh, you're absolutely right. I didn't mean my questions in a fingerpointing way, but rather I genuinely want to know what arguments are being made in his favor, and by whom, and for what reason. And, if Wik has supporters, then they are going to be the people most likely to be able to get him to change.
I absolutely think that people who defend Wik could very well be acting in perfectly good faith and be valued community members in their own right. Indeed, I'm the first to say based on my conversations with Wik that I think he really sincerely has a beef with a bunch of trolls, and thinks he's doing good by battling them.
The problem here is ironic. We let trolls go on a bit too much. Then someone like Wik sticks his neck out to fight them, but *also* in the process makes himself extremely annoying to other users. If we had already gotten rid of the original problem users, then maybe Wik wouldn't have felt compelled to behave badly.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The problem here is ironic. We let trolls go on a bit too much. Then someone like Wik sticks his neck out to fight them, but *also* in the process makes himself extremely annoying to other users. If we had already gotten rid of the original problem users, then maybe Wik wouldn't have felt compelled to behave badly.
Wik would be great if he were the only person working on Wikipedia. But he seems unable to distinguish between trolling and good-faith editing; if you disagree with him on *anything*, it must be because you're a troll or a moron or both. As you can now see from his user page, if you get rid of everyone that Wik deems a problem user, you'll end up with a much-shrunken list of contributors.
Wiki editing requires an atmosphere of basic mutual trust; anybody who insists on poisoning that, either by doing untrustworthy things (trolling, sock puppetry, etc), or by distrusting everybody else indiscriminately (Wik), has to be excluded for the sake of everybody else.
Stan
I think that's a very perceptive analysis, Stan. I agree completely.
Just as a by the way, I think that Wik's current user page is beyond the pale. We have a firm rule against personal attacks, and he's really crossed the line there recently. He calls lots of people "morons" and "Nazi" and "lying" and so on. And he did so after I tried to persuade him to not use that page in a provocative manner.
I am of the tentative opinion that he did it (post a list of morons, trolls, etc) simply to get a rise out of people, simply to be obnxious, simply because he wants to be banned. Others may disagree about his motives, but it is hard to disagree that we do have a rule against that sort of thing.
--Jimbo
Stan Shebs wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The problem here is ironic. We let trolls go on a bit too much. Then someone like Wik sticks his neck out to fight them, but *also* in the process makes himself extremely annoying to other users. If we had already gotten rid of the original problem users, then maybe Wik wouldn't have felt compelled to behave badly.
Wik would be great if he were the only person working on Wikipedia. But he seems unable to distinguish between trolling and good-faith editing; if you disagree with him on *anything*, it must be because you're a troll or a moron or both. As you can now see from his user page, if you get rid of everyone that Wik deems a problem user, you'll end up with a much-shrunken list of contributors.
Wiki editing requires an atmosphere of basic mutual trust; anybody who insists on poisoning that, either by doing untrustworthy things (trolling, sock puppetry, etc), or by distrusting everybody else indiscriminately (Wik), has to be excluded for the sake of everybody else.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fennec Foxen wrote
Has anyone suggested Wik simply be denied watchlist rights? With the servers groaning, a watchlist of 10000+ pages is surely greedy for resources. Charles
Is there software in place to allow denials such as this?
I have no idea. It is surely technically possible to clear the list.
Charles
I first noticed this long watchlist. I take it to be evidence of a certain over-involvement. Certainly keeping 10,000 articles, "straight" doesn't leave much time for conversation with other users about changes and reversions.
Fred
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 16:07:37 +0100 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wik and a not-quite-proposal for constitutional change
Fennec Foxen wrote
Has anyone suggested Wik simply be denied watchlist rights? With the servers groaning, a watchlist of 10000+ pages is surely greedy for resources. Charles
Is there software in place to allow denials such as this?
I have no idea. It is surely technically possible to clear the list.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 06:24:22 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik and a not-quite-proposal for constitutional change
Fred Bauder wrote:
I can't believe he left on that account. I think it was more the general athmosphere. The process with Wik will probably go for several rounds and drag on for 6 months. This is linked to the substantial support system Wik has among other users many of who would rebel on the other side if the arbitrators were seen to deal pre-emptively with him.
Where is that support system? Who supports him? Can they be encouraged to pressure him into better behavior?
Wik is relatively popular and people came forward and defended him. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik/Evidence #Evidence_in_favour_of_Wik [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Evidence]] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik#Statemen ts_by_others [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik]]
The decision in the first Wik case included the following:
3. The above three findings nothwithstanding, we do acknowledge that Wik has been a long-time and prolific contributor to Wikipedia, and that a great many of his edits that did not involve edit wars constitute valuable contributions to the encyclopedia.
Accepted 7-2, with one de facto abstention.
See: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik]]
Certainly Wik's supporters could put their energy into working with Wik instead of supporting him in his quarrels.
I don't see any reason for the process to go on for several *more* rounds and for 6 *more* months. At some point, very soon, he just needs to be banned, and that's that.
This is just my prediction and is based on the, hopefully false, assumption that Wik will just keep on with his aggressive behavior and we can look forward to Wik3 and Wik4. Most of the arbitrators do not share my pessimism and are proposing relatively mild sanctions for this round.
At some point, very soon, he just needs to be banned, and that's that.
There seems to be substantial disagreement with this conclusion. I think those who disagree need to come forward with some theory of change that would avoid coming to this pass. I fear the only theory out there now is because he does so much "good" we ought to be willing to live with whatever harm he does.
I share the concerns that people have expressed about the speed (or lack thereof) of our current processes. I do not have a good idea for a solution, but I think that quickpolls do offer us one promising alternative, one that is currently growing "organically" because it works.
Because of the support someone like Wik has, quickpolls are generally inconclusive. It is a spiderweb that works good on flies but hawks fly through.
I'm not (quite) making a proposal here, but just tossing out an idea that I've been mulling over for a few days.
We could change the role of the arbitration committee to be more of a 'Board of Appeals'. The purpose of the board of appeals would be to potentially overturn decisions made by quickpolls. Then quickpolls could be used for rapid banning, and people who feel that they have been unjustly banned could appeal to the board of appeals.
The actual results at quickpolls are not that good, indeed the process is often abused for use in petty quarrels. see [[Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive]]
The debate on [[Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls]] may eventually be productive but is quite involved and inconclusive as it stands now.
The issue of burden of proof would not change. That is to say, the appeals board, as with the current arbitration committee, would be obliged to approach each case with an 'innocent until proven guilty' mentality. Their range of options as to actions to take would remain the same.
What would be different is how users are dealt with during the intermediate period between the trouble starting and final adjudication. If a quickpoll indicates a ban, the user is banned unless and until the appeal is successful.
This is a substantial increase in penalty, from a 24 hour ban to an ban which whill stretch on til there is a decision from the arbitrators, who already seem to be stretched a bit.
A successful appeal might not overturn the quickban, exactly, but rather be our institutional method of accepting a person's promise to change their behavior in specific ways.
Legitimate appeals might be "I didn't do it," or "I did it, but it wasn't against the rules," or "I did it, and I'm sorry, I won't do it again."
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------- From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 08:58:24 -0600 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wik and a not-quite-proposal for constitutional change
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 06:24:22 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wik and a not-quite-proposal for constitutional change
Fred Bauder wrote:
I can't believe he left on that account. I think it was more the general athmosphere. The process with Wik will probably go for several rounds and drag on for 6 months. This is linked to the substantial support system Wik has among other users many of who would rebel on the other side if the arbitrators were seen to deal pre-emptively with him.
Where is that support system? Who supports him? Can they be encouraged to pressure him into better behavior?
Wik is relatively popular and people came forward and defended him. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik/Evidence #Evidence_in_favour_of_Wik [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Evidence]] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik#Statemen ts_by_others [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik]]
The decision in the first Wik case included the following:
3. The above three findings nothwithstanding, we do acknowledge that Wik has been a long-time and prolific contributor to Wikipedia, and that a great many of his edits that did not involve edit wars constitute valuable contributions to the encyclopedia.
Accepted 7-2, with one de facto abstention.
See: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik]]
Certainly Wik's supporters could put their energy into working with Wik instead of supporting him in his quarrels.
I don't see any reason for the process to go on for several *more* rounds and for 6 *more* months. At some point, very soon, he just needs to be banned, and that's that.
This is just my prediction and is based on the, hopefully false, assumption that Wik will just keep on with his aggressive behavior and we can look forward to Wik3 and Wik4. Most of the arbitrators do not share my pessimism and are proposing relatively mild sanctions for this round.
At some point, very soon, he just needs to be banned, and that's that.
There seems to be substantial disagreement with this conclusion. I think those who disagree need to come forward with some theory of change that would avoid coming to this pass. I fear the only theory out there now is because he does so much "good" we ought to be willing to live with whatever harm he does.
I share the concerns that people have expressed about the speed (or lack thereof) of our current processes. I do not have a good idea for a solution, but I think that quickpolls do offer us one promising alternative, one that is currently growing "organically" because it works.
Because of the support someone like Wik has, quickpolls are generally inconclusive. It is a spiderweb that works good on flies but hawks fly through.
I'm not (quite) making a proposal here, but just tossing out an idea that I've been mulling over for a few days.
We could change the role of the arbitration committee to be more of a 'Board of Appeals'. The purpose of the board of appeals would be to potentially overturn decisions made by quickpolls. Then quickpolls could be used for rapid banning, and people who feel that they have been unjustly banned could appeal to the board of appeals.
The actual results at quickpolls are not that good, indeed the process is often abused for use in petty quarrels. see [[Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive]]
The debate on [[Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls]] may eventually be productive but is quite involved and inconclusive as it stands now.
The issue of burden of proof would not change. That is to say, the appeals board, as with the current arbitration committee, would be obliged to approach each case with an 'innocent until proven guilty' mentality. Their range of options as to actions to take would remain the same.
What would be different is how users are dealt with during the intermediate period between the trouble starting and final adjudication. If a quickpoll indicates a ban, the user is banned unless and until the appeal is successful.
This is a substantial increase in penalty, from a 24 hour ban to an ban which whill stretch on til there is a decision from the arbitrators, who already seem to be stretched a bit.
A successful appeal might not overturn the quickban, exactly, but rather be our institutional method of accepting a person's promise to change their behavior in specific ways.
Legitimate appeals might be "I didn't do it," or "I did it, but it wasn't against the rules," or "I did it, and I'm sorry, I won't do it again."
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy-
What would be different is how users are dealt with during the intermediate period between the trouble starting and final adjudication. If a quickpoll indicates a ban, the user is banned unless and until the appeal is successful.
Well, I invented quickpolls so I'm of course in favor of using them, but I must caution that results so far haven't made me very optimistic. There have been a couple of cases where there were quickpolls on two users for violation of the three revert rule, and one of them got banned, and the other didn't. It was clear that the user who didn't get banned did so solely because people liked him more ("we can't afford to lose him") or agreed with him politically.
So this does to some extent confirm the fears that people have had that voting would lead to popularity contests instead of informed decisions. It may be possible to address this through a "same crime, same time" policy, moderation, restrictions on voting, and so forth, but with the current system Fred is correct when he says that quickpolls are good for flies but not for hawks. That is why we have presently agreed to suspend the use of quickpolls for violations of the three revert rules, and use them only for more obvious cases. Policy reform is of course welcome.
We also need a wide range of instruments of punishment:
Technical: - per article bans - edit throttling ("edit only every x minutes") - edit limiting ("only edit this page x times per day") - namespaces limiting ("no editing of Wikipedia: pages") - deny access to page history (makes reverting difficult)
Policy: - "no revert without prior discussion on talk page, otherwise ban at discretion of sysop" - "no reverts, period" - "remove personal attack X, or else"
Regards,
Erik
I observe that Wik's supporters generally haven't had their work erased by him, and cheer him on as a sort of energetic proxy. But I'll bet not a single person will actually quit WP if he is banned; people quit when they've had their hard work undone, not because some person is gone.
Stan
Fred Bauder wrote:
I can't believe he left on that account. I think it was more the general athmosphere. The process with Wik will probably go for several rounds and drag on for 6 months. This is linked to the substantial support system Wik has among other users many of who would rebel on the other side if the arbitrators were seen to deal pre-emptively with him.
Fred
From: "KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 08:29:47 +0100 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Two users left because of Wik
I agree with Erik in virtually everything he says. The AC process is too slow. It's not the arbitrators fault, anything done by a committee is always very slow. But we _must_ fix it. I cannot believe we can lose a user like Tannin.
Theresa _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l