I recently stumbled across [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Evidence/Full_version]], and ... wow! I've neither knowledge of this dispute nor any great ideas on how Wikipedia should do arbitration, but I think this 500k page is one of the most mind-boggling -- and disturbing -- artifacts I've yet come across on Wikipedia ;-)
(Sorry, I don't really have a point, I just needed to voice a "wow".)
--Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
I recently stumbled across [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Evidence/Full_version]], and ... wow! I've neither knowledge of this dispute nor any great ideas on how Wikipedia should do arbitration, but I think this 500k page is one of the most mind-boggling -- and disturbing -- artifacts I've yet come across on Wikipedia ;-)
(Sorry, I don't really have a point, I just needed to voice a "wow".)
I'm rather disturbed by it myself, ;-)
Jayjg
Thats just freaking ridiculous. Ive said it once and ill say it again. SHORT bans for any breech of policy. Lots of short bans pavlov's dogs style.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:05:13 +0000 (GMT), Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I recently stumbled across [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Evidence/Full_version]], and ... wow! I've neither knowledge of this dispute nor any great ideas on how Wikipedia should do arbitration, but I think this 500k page is one of the most mind-boggling -- and disturbing -- artifacts I've yet come across on Wikipedia ;-)
(Sorry, I don't really have a point, I just needed to voice a "wow".)
--Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am proposing limits on the length of presentation and in this case asking the participants to restate their evidence in more usable form. The state of the evidence page made it almost impossible to use productively for its intended purpose.
Fred
From: Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:05:13 +0000 (GMT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Just...wow.
I recently stumbled across [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Evidence/Full_ver sion]], and ... wow! I've neither knowledge of this dispute nor any great ideas on how Wikipedia should do arbitration, but I think this 500k page is one of the most mind-boggling -- and disturbing -- artifacts I've yet come across on Wikipedia ;-)
(Sorry, I don't really have a point, I just needed to voice a "wow".)
--Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Monday, December 13, 2004 11:43 PM, Fred wrote:
[Re. HistoryBuffEr vs. Jayjg evidence page]
I am proposing limits on the length of presentation and in this case asking the participants to restate their evidence in more usable form. The state of the evidence page made it almost impossible to use productively for its intended purpose.
Fred
Yeah, I think this is a good idea, though I'm slightly worried about the 500 word limit - does anyone think that this is perhaps a little too short? I'm just concerned about people whose complaints are wide-ranging (and it's interesting, though perhaps not terribly surprising, just how many people's complaints become wide-ranging once they have progressed all the way along the dispute resolution chain to Arbitration).
Yours,
Yeah, I think this is a good idea, though I'm slightly worried about the 500 word limit - does anyone think that this is perhaps a little too short? I'm just concerned about people whose complaints are wide-ranging (and it's interesting, though perhaps not terribly surprising, just how many people's complaints become wide-ranging once they have progressed all the way along the dispute resolution chain to Arbitration).
I think this is on the right track, but it's probably throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I can't see too much of a problem with *size*, as there's some cases where it may well be needed. Furthermore, I think this problem may well be eliminated by the new format of organising evidence pages, which was a stroke of genius.
-- ambi
On Monday, December 13, 2004 5:05 PM, wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org <> wrote:
I recently stumbled across [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/E vidence/Full_version]], and ... wow! I've neither knowledge of this dispute nor any great ideas on how Wikipedia should do arbitration, but I think this 500k page is one of the most mind-boggling -- and disturbing -- artifacts I've yet come across on Wikipedia ;-)
Yeah. This is, I think, the largest evidence page that we on the Committee have had to put up with, but, I'm pretty sure, not the least comprehensible. The vastness, however made it useless, and Fred's suggestion of limiting evidence to 500 words seems to be a very good one.
(Sorry, I don't really have a point, I just needed to voice a "wow".)
This might give some idea of what we Arbitrators have to go through to vote on cases, and hopefully an (or, at least, some) understanding of why cases can take so long. Throwing more active Arbitrators at the problem (and I look forward to serving with the others, assuming I get elected to be re-appointed - and if you haven't voted yet, please do, because the larger the number of votes case, the clearer the community's mandate for our work) doesn't make such issues go away, nor speed their digestion up significantly.
--Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
[Snip]
Yours,
James D. Forrester (James F.) wrote:
This might give some idea of what we Arbitrators have to go through to vote on cases, and hopefully an (or, at least, some) understanding of why cases can take so long.
Yes! I would like to personally vouch for this, because I try to follow along with most of the ArbCom cases, but of course they spend a lot more time on these things than I do. This is a big job, and it's an astounding thing that we have so many good people who are willing to do such a great job of it.
Throwing more active Arbitrators at the problem (and I look forward to serving with the others, assuming I get elected to be re-appointed - and if you haven't voted yet, please do, because the larger the number of votes case, the clearer the community's mandate for our work) doesn't make such issues go away, nor speed their digestion up significantly.
Yes, everyone please vote, and please remember that *thoughtfulness* is the best path to *justice*. We want an ArbCom that is neither vindictive nor soft -- and James F. has pegged it here... it takes time and it takes thoughtful people.
--Jimbo