Delirium raises the "track record" question rather eloquently.
My own view is:
* Trouble caused elsewhere should ALERT US that it might spread here. * Generally, users should get a clean slate (see AssumeGoodFaith).
So I'd say the committees should avoid bringing up "outside activities" and using them against Wikipedians. No matter how they act elsewhere, as long as they behave themselves here.
Ed Poor
The question is: In the case of someone who is definitely not behaving themselves here, can other internet activities be considered as we try to deal with them? Especially in evaluating whether we are dealing with a lifestyle as opposed to limited situational offenses.
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 09:35:03 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] outside evidence and arbitration
Delirium raises the "track record" question rather eloquently.
My own view is:
- Trouble caused elsewhere should ALERT US that it might spread here.
- Generally, users should get a clean slate (see AssumeGoodFaith).
So I'd say the committees should avoid bringing up "outside activities" and using them against Wikipedians. No matter how they act elsewhere, as long as they behave themselves here.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 16:43, Fred Bauder wrote:
The question is: In the case of someone who is definitely not behaving themselves here, can other internet activities be considered as we try to deal with them? Especially in evaluating whether we are dealing with a lifestyle as opposed to limited situational offenses.
Fred
IMO, you should consider outside behaviour, but always to the benefit of the user in question.
For someone with a stellar record outside wikipedia, it should serve as an indication that something with their interaction with wikipidia may be to blame, and the remedy should try to reflect that.
For someone with less than a stellar record outside wikipedia, the remedy (if any is conceivable) should reflect that fact, to the effect that the remedy be realistic, and not merely a trap.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (speaking as a private Wikipedian)
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Fred Bauder wrote:
The question is: In the case of someone who is definitely not behaving themselves here, can other internet activities be considered as we try to deal with them? Especially in evaluating whether we are dealing with a lifestyle as opposed to limited situational offenses.
I agree with Fred on this (although I'd use the phrase "a clear pattern of behavior" rather than "lifestyle"). If it can be shown that a given individual who is causing problems on Wikipedia has in the past consistently engaged in trouble-making behavior, then it should be considered by the arbitration committee.
What I think I see a number of people get hung up on concerning this point is the nature of "evidence". It's possible a given person can have a history like the one we're hypothesizing, yet is trying to start afresh; but I feel an important step in starting afresh is for that person to acknowledge that she/he did do wrong, rather than to deny or want to exclude it from consideration.
In other words, this should not be the only evidence, or the decisive piece of evidence in deciding an arbitration.
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
What I think I see a number of people get hung up on concerning this point is the nature of "evidence". It's possible a given person can have a history like the one we're hypothesizing, yet is trying to start afresh; but I feel an important step in starting afresh is for that person to acknowledge that she/he did do wrong, rather than to deny or want to exclude it from consideration.
I agree with that. A simple statement by the person that they are legitimately interested in bettering the encyclopedia, and do not desire problems to continue, would go a long way, if it seemed geniuine. They don't even have to necessarily be contrite (depending on the situation), but they also ought not to be confrontational and give the impression that unless we take forceful action, they'll continue causing problems and not make any effort to mitigate them.
-Mark
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Delirium raises the "track record" question rather eloquently.
My own view is:
- Trouble caused elsewhere should ALERT US that it might spread here.
- Generally, users should get a clean slate (see AssumeGoodFaith).
So I'd say the committees should avoid bringing up "outside activities" and using them against Wikipedians. No matter how they act elsewhere, as long as they behave themselves here.
I support this view. In many courts the record of previous convictions is not admissible as evidence for establishing current guilt.
If the general population on these other sites are at all like Wikipedians they're probably very argumentative. Thus, to deal with that kind of evidence fairly our arbitrators would need to review the entire argument that took place on the other site. Are the arbitrators willing to wade through this stuff, and are we willing to put them through such an ordeal?
Ec