Fred Bauder wisely observed:
"Arbitration is not a tool to be used in struggle with other editors. If you are struggling with other editors rather than complaining in good faith about violations of Wikipedia policy you are probably violating Wikipedia policies yourself."
However, users (of all ranks):
* Generally regard arbitration as a HIM vs. YOU matter.
* Often use arbitration as a weapon with which to carry on struggles with other editors.
What we need instead is a board which enforces rules in HIM vs. US paradigm. That is, a user's conduct or speech is evaluated in terms of how well it supports or thwarts the aims of Wikipedia.
If someone's name-calling is really bugging others, distracting them from writing superb articles, and making them want to kick the dust of this crummy little town off their shoes -- well, I'd say then that HIS NAME-CALLING is out of line and ought to be squelched somehow. It would be good to have a rule on hand, which we can pull off a shelf, dust off, and apply. (YOU ARE BLOCKED FOR X AMOUNT OF TIME.) The time-out gives the rest of us a chance to recover from his annoying behavior, and get back into the normal, everyday routine of cooperative editing. And he might even *choose* to adhere more closely to the rules when we let him come back.
Let's stop making it a "dispute resolution process" between two EQUALS who happen to disagree. Maybe ONE of them is actually in the RIGHT, and the other guy is MESSING THINGS UP. In such a case, it's not a matter of smoothing over a 'conflict' between two people. It's enforcing the rules of the COMMUNITY so we can get on with furthering the aims of our project.
Let's send this message to all and sundry: "You wanna help us build a great encyclopedia? Fine, and welcome! You want to advance your own agenda? Stop right here: learn to do it our way, or simply DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE."
Uncle Ed Poor Wikipedia's First Elected Bureaucrat Developer Emeritus ...and all around nice guy!
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Fred Bauder wisely observed:
"Arbitration is not a tool to be used in struggle with other editors. If you are struggling with other editors rather than complaining in good faith about violations of Wikipedia policy you are probably violating Wikipedia policies yourself." However, users (of all ranks):
- Generally regard arbitration as a HIM vs. YOU matter.
- Often use arbitration as a weapon with which to carry on struggles
with other editors.
Yep, which is incorrect.
What we need instead is a board which enforces rules in HIM vs. US paradigm. That is, a user's conduct or speech is evaluated in terms of how well it supports or thwarts the aims of Wikipedia. If someone's name-calling is really bugging others, distracting them from writing superb articles, and making them want to kick the dust of this crummy little town off their shoes -- well, I'd say then that HIS NAME-CALLING is out of line and ought to be squelched somehow. It would be good to have a rule on hand, which we can pull off a shelf, dust off, and apply. (YOU ARE BLOCKED FOR X AMOUNT OF TIME.) The time-out gives the rest of us a chance to recover from his annoying behavior, and get back into the normal, everyday routine of cooperative editing. And he might even *choose* to adhere more closely to the rules when we let him come back. Let's stop making it a "dispute resolution process" between two EQUALS who happen to disagree. Maybe ONE of them is actually in the RIGHT, and the other guy is MESSING THINGS UP. In such a case, it's not a matter of smoothing over a 'conflict' between two people. It's enforcing the rules of the COMMUNITY so we can get on with furthering the aims of our project. Let's send this message to all and sundry: "You wanna help us build a great encyclopedia? Fine, and welcome! You want to advance your own agenda? Stop right here: learn to do it our way, or simply DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE."
I think there's a lot of what you describe in what we try to do now ;-) Perhaps there's a good way to phrase it that can go on a suitable page.
- d.