Mr-Natural-Health has indicated on Teresa Knott's Talk page that he has
no
interest in participating in the Arbitration process. OK, now what? Is he going to get to continue to mess up article after article and call people names forever because nobody wants to do anything about him?
It's still the *mediation* process at this point. We are still attempting to persuade him to try mediation - if that fails then I guess we will have to pass this over to the arbitration committee.
This is where my pessimism starts rising.
Regards
sannse
Why is everybody tip-toeing around this arsehole? Surely enough is enough. Sod 'mediation', if somebody was behaving like this in my local pub they'd have been shown the door long ago.
Graham (Quercus robur)
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004
Well, we could have a summary procedure for egregious cases, couldn't call it Kangaroo Court, maybe Duck Court. It could be evoked by Ed Poor and a few others of his status, say also Daniel Mayers. They could then briefly consider the matter and ban the offender until the matter could be considered by the mediation and arbitration committees. Kind of like a preliminary injunction. Grounds would be the likelyhood of permanent damage to the project resulting from serious offenses combined with a general refusal to listen.
Fred
From: "Graham Burnett" grahamburnett@blueyonder.co.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:14:01 -0000 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Enough is enough
Mr-Natural-Health has indicated on Teresa Knott's Talk page that he has
no
interest in participating in the Arbitration process. OK, now what? Is he going to get to continue to mess up article after article and call people names forever because nobody wants to do anything about him?
It's still the *mediation* process at this point. We are still attempting to persuade him to try mediation - if that fails then I guess we will have to pass this over to the arbitration committee.
This is where my pessimism starts rising.
Regards
sannse
Why is everybody tip-toeing around this arsehole? Surely enough is enough. Sod 'mediation', if somebody was behaving like this in my local pub they'd have been shown the door long ago.
Graham (Quercus robur)
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Well, we could have a summary procedure for egregious cases, couldn't call it Kangaroo Court, maybe Duck Court. It could be evoked by Ed Poor and a few others of his status, say also Daniel Mayers. They could then briefly consider the matter and ban the offender until the matter could be considered by the mediation and arbitration committees. Kind of like a preliminary injunction. Grounds would be the likelyhood of permanent damage to the project resulting from serious offenses combined with a general refusal to listen.
Fred
Do we really need temporary bans? We didn't have the need for them before and they would be very damaging to the Wiki principle. Remember: Wikipedia is a Wiki Encyclopedia, not a courtroom. There's no real danger of letting someone off, aside from the chance that they might vandalize a few pages, something which is easily reversible. In the past, we've had a lot of trouble with unilateral bans, and they have always been condemned after the fact by almost everyone.
LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Grounds would be the likelyhood of permanent damage to the project resulting from serious offenses combined with a general refusal to listen.
From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:41:29 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Duck Court
Do we really need temporary bans? We didn't have the need for them before and they would be very damaging to the Wiki principle. Remember: Wikipedia is a Wiki Encyclopedia, not a courtroom. There's no real danger of letting someone off, aside from the chance that they might vandalize a few pages, something which is easily reversible. In the past, we've had a lot of trouble with unilateral bans, and they have always been condemned after the fact by almost everyone.
I tend to agree with you Little Dan, most of the damage done can be rectified by reverting edits. Sure if someone is really destructive it might be a lot of edits, but then we have a list of all the contributions there only needs to be someone who is willing to revert them all.
If you are too quick at banning someone you may not even have enough material to show that the person should not be allowed to contribute. better that they demonstrate their bad behaviour before they undergo the "arbitration" ordeal.
There might be a really, really rare case that could be done by the Wikimedia board, you will notice that Art III: sec. 4.4. of the bylaws gives the Board of Trustees the right to suspend member privileges in the cases of misconduct. Someone would have to apply to the Board to get them to suspend the member in that case. I guess you have to convince the Board members or make an application to them: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf
Alex756
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Duck Court
Fred Bauder wrote:
Well, we could have a summary procedure for egregious cases, couldn't call it Kangaroo Court, maybe Duck Court. It could be evoked by Ed Poor and a few others of his status, say also Daniel Mayers. They could then briefly consider the matter and ban the offender until the matter could be considered by the mediation and arbitration committees. Kind of like a preliminary injunction. Grounds would be the likelyhood of permanent damage to the project resulting from serious offenses combined with a general refusal to listen.
Fred
Do we really need temporary bans? We didn't have the need for them before and they would be very damaging to the Wiki principle. Remember: Wikipedia is a Wiki Encyclopedia, not a courtroom. There's no real danger of letting someone off, aside from the chance that they might vandalize a few pages, something which is easily reversible. In the past, we've had a lot of trouble with unilateral bans, and they have always been condemned after the fact by almost everyone.
LDan
--- "Alex R." alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
I tend to agree with you Little Dan, most of the damage done can be rectified by reverting edits. Sure if someone is really destructive it might be a lot of edits, but then we have a list of all the contributions there only needs to be someone who is willing to revert them all.
If you are too quick at banning someone you may not even have enough material to show that the person should not be allowed to contribute. better that they demonstrate their bad behaviour before they undergo the "arbitration" ordeal.
There might be a really, really rare case that could be done by the Wikimedia board, you will notice that Art III: sec. 4.4. of the bylaws gives the Board of Trustees the right to suspend member privileges in the cases of misconduct. Someone would have to apply to the Board to get them to suspend the member in that case. I guess you have to convince the Board members or make an application to them: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf
Alex756
Who's on the board of trustees?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com
--- "Alex R." alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
I tend to agree with you Little Dan, most of the damage done can be rectified by reverting edits. Sure if someone is really destructive it might be a lot of edits, but then we have a list of all the contributions there only needs to be someone who is willing to revert them all.
If you are too quick at banning someone you may not even have enough material to show that the person should not be allowed to contribute. better that they demonstrate their bad behaviour before they undergo the "arbitration" ordeal.
There might be a really, really rare case that could be done by the Wikimedia board, you will notice that Art III: sec. 4.4. of the bylaws gives the Board of Trustees the right to suspend member privileges in the cases of misconduct. Someone would have to apply to the Board to get them to suspend the member in that case. I guess you have to convince the Board members or make an application to them: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf
Alex756
Who's on the board of trustees?
There are a total of five seats on the Board. One is Jimbo Wales, and there are two other initial trustees: Michael Davis and Tim Shell. It states that at Art. IV sec. 2.2. There are also two elected positions that have to be elected within 90 days of the adoption of the bylaws (no word on when they were adopted). These two positions are "Member Representatives" as it states in sec. 2.1. They should be elected one from "contributing members" and one from "active members" (see pages 3-4 of the pdf.). The two types of members that are entitled to be elected are: (1) Contributing Active Members. These people are entitled to vote in this category if they have paid a membership fee and (2) Volunteer Active Members, who make contributions. I've started a page on this on the Meta-Wiki here: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees Jimbo just posted this a few days ago, so it is new to everyone.
Alex R.
There are a total of five seats on the Board. One is Jimbo Wales, and there are two other initial trustees: Michael Davis and Tim Shell. Alex R.
Who are they?
Daniel Ehrenberg
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 10:17 pm, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
There are a total of five seats on the Board. One is Jimbo Wales, and there are two other initial trustees: Michael Davis and Tim Shell. Alex R.
Who are they?
They're Jimbo's shills that ensure a 3/5 majority. ;-) (/ducks and hides)
Best, Sascha Noyes
From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com
There are a total of five seats on the Board. One is Jimbo Wales, and there are two other initial trustees: Michael Davis and Tim Shell. Alex R.
Who are they?
You willl have to ask Jimbo.
Daniel Ehrenberg
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l