The arguments which claim that other contributors are "just as bad" are pernicious and self-serving.
When I taught Sunday School, I figured out how to finesse this tactic.
Any time there were multiple violators of a rule (such as No Hitting or No Teasing), I would simply target the MOST RECENT violator for a time-out.
In all likelihood, I wound up giving a time-out to someone who was an aggrieved party and only "righting a wrong" (as they may have thought). Yet, the effect was remarkable.
The students soon learned that retaliation was not an effective tactic. I reinforced this lesson by suggesting that if teased or hit in class, they might appeal to me (the teacher) rather than taking matters into their own hands.
The next stage was a real eye-opener. The ones that were always starting trouble found that they COULD NOT provoke a response from the other. When one student bullied another, he did not get hit back. Eventually, he'd get caught red-handed (so to speak) and get a time-out. I can't recall a case where any student get more than 3 timeouts for the same type of offense.
In less than 3 months, my class became very orderly. It fairly hummed with tranquility and good cheer and grew rapidly in size.
The student who had previously been the worst trouble-maker voluntarily took on the task of telling every new student the rules!
I've told this story many times on this list, but no one has figured out how to apply its lessons to management of adult Wikipedians. Too bad. So much time and talent wasted.
I would like the arbcom to apply swift and short bans. Or change the system so that any admin can apply a ban of up to 7 days, subject to arbcom review.
If a contributor has been clearly warned of the rule on his talk page, but continues to violate it, why not let ANY SYSOP apply a temp-ban? Can't we trust administrators to apply the 'rule of law'?
If the contributor genuinely feels the rule has been misapplied, let him appeal to the arbcom himself. (Not charge the admin with 'abuse', of course, but apply to the arbcom for leniency or clemency or a reversal.)
Like a squad of sheriffs. Lock up the troublemaker first. Then, he can either stay 'in jail' while he cools off (or sobers up) *OR* he can demand a hearing in front of a judge.
We're getting to be such a big community that we're going to have to do SOMETHING like this.
-----Original Message----- From: Charles Matthews [mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 7:35 AM To: Wikien list Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Objecting to hatespeech is grounds forbeingbanned? Huh?!
Rebecca wrote
Sometimes, Charles, I really do wonder if you read people's posts before replying to them.
Not a fair comment. My point is that consistency cannot under current conditions be instantly demanded, in the form that if Y is just as bad as X etc. It can be demanded in the longer term in the form of precedents; which indeed is something to ask about.
Charles
Ed Poor wrote:
We're getting to be such a big community that we're going to have to do
SOMETHING like this.
Some points are: enforcement is not really a difficulty - bans are easy and effective, except for the known but minor problem (in the scale of things) of the returning bannee. Justice is an unknown quantity - and the whole business of being barred from what is time-consuming voluntary work is odd (those who feel they have a 'right to edit' are probably harbouring some POV they feel their right attaches to). Justice is very important, because the community feels it is. Patently unjust tactics, 'pour encourager les autres' as Voltaire didn't really mean, were employed at my school (I mean, where I was a pupil), a most conservative place, with the object of convincing young boys that the world is an unfair place. It did that, all right.
Charles
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:28:26 -0400, Poor, Edmund W edmund.w.poor@abc.com wrote:
I would like the arbcom to apply swift and short bans. Or change the system so that any admin can apply a ban of up to 7 days, subject to arbcom review.
I just want to second the first sentence here. The social feedback resulting from frequent, reliably swift, and relatively temporary judgments, is greatly needed.
And I also agree with the rest of the sentiment; a 24-hr ban is, at worst, a slap on the wrist that deprives a user of his/her watchlist and requires him to edit anonymously or take 30 seconds to create a new account. But this is something for a different discussion.
Danny suggested the other night that the AC be encouraged to produce some sort of initial response/ruling within a short period of time, allowing for more detailed arbitration after a few months of deliberation if necessary. This might be one way to strengthen the AC--community feedback loop.
+sj+
We can make emergency (temporary) orders, but so far the threshold to capture the attention of enough arbitrators to do this has been pretty high.
Fred
From: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com Reply-To: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:34:42 -0400 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Countering the "Just as bad" tactic (was: Objecting to hatespeech is grounds forbeing banned?)
Danny suggested the other night that the AC be encouraged to produce some sort of initial response/ruling within a short period of time, allowing for more detailed arbitration after a few months of deliberation if necessary. This might be one way to strengthen the AC--community feedback loop.
The threshold to capture the attention of enough arbitrators to do anything has been pretty high. There's three or four who do the job, but how many cases have been sitting open, with half-voted-upon proposals, for *months* now, because none of the other arbitrators will stop by and vote/discuss?
It's not fair to those that have to put up with said users - and nor is it fair to the user with the axe hanging above their head for months.
Anything to speed this up would be a step in the right direction
-- ambi
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:20:13 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We can make emergency (temporary) orders, but so far the threshold to capture the attention of enough arbitrators to do this has been pretty high.
Fred
From: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com Reply-To: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:34:42 -0400 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Countering the "Just as bad" tactic (was: Objecting to hatespeech is grounds forbeing banned?)
Danny suggested the other night that the AC be encouraged to produce some sort of initial response/ruling within a short period of time, allowing for more detailed arbitration after a few months of deliberation if necessary. This might be one way to strengthen the AC--community feedback loop.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sj wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:28:26 -0400, Poor, Edmund W edmund.w.poor@abc.com wrote:
I would like the arbcom to apply swift and short bans. Or change the system so that any admin can apply a ban of up to 7 days, subject to arbcom review.
I just want to second the first sentence here. The social feedback resulting from frequent, reliably swift, and relatively temporary judgments, is greatly needed.
Yep. Attitude readjustment is created with *reliable* sanction, not necessarily *strong* sanction.
Danny suggested the other night that the AC be encouraged to produce some sort of initial response/ruling within a short period of time, allowing for more detailed arbitration after a few months of deliberation if necessary. This might be one way to strengthen the AC--community feedback loop.
Definitely.
- d.