I know folks are busy with Irismeister right now, but Plautus satire seems to be eating up a lot of people's time -- both on talk pages and on whichever article he decides to target -- currently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tornado and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado
Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
Thanks, Brian (Bcorr)
At 12:40:27 2/25/04 +0600, you wrote:
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:40:27 +0600 From: "Arno M" redgum46@lycos.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
Speaking of which - this guy now has 21 signatures (myself included) who want him banned. He is continuing to make a joke out of the Sep 11 page and antagonising other users. When will something be done?
Ed Poor is helping Plautus to try to learn the norms of the community, and has great hopes for the future. Plautus has also written to me expressing a desire for change.
I will also try to help.
In the meantime, show him love. Love is the only hope for us all. If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
--Jimbo
Brian Corr wrote:
I know folks are busy with Irismeister right now, but Plautus satire seems to be eating up a lot of people's time -- both on talk pages and on whichever article he decides to target -- currently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tornado and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado
Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
Thanks, Brian (Bcorr)
At 12:40:27 2/25/04 +0600, you wrote:
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:40:27 +0600 From: "Arno M" redgum46@lycos.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
Speaking of which - this guy now has 21 signatures (myself included) who want him banned. He is continuing to make a joke out of the Sep 11 page and antagonising other users. When will something be done?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jimmy-
In the meantime, show him love. Love is the only hope for us all. If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
Plautus is not reformable. He is a mentally unbalanced, paranoid delusional individual. The evidence here is about as clear as it can get. There is a discussion / evidence page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
In an informal poll, 23 users have expressed that they want Plautus to be banned. 3 or 4 users currently think that he can be reformed.
This situation is much clearer than it was with Clutch, and Clutch was banned. It is much clearer than it was with Helga, and Helga was banned. It is much clearer than it was with Lir, and Lir was banned.
I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be allowed to make such decisions in the first place.
We need quicker and more effective action against policy violations, or more users will be driven away in disgust. Wikipedia is a natural attraction point for cranks and crackpots. If you want to run an asylum, Jimbo, you should say so upfront. Otherwise we should refer these individuals to the proper institutions.
Regards,
Erik
I didn't actually fall down and roll on the floor, but LOL.
Don't worry, we can do the job.
Fred, arbitration committee member
From: erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: 26 Feb 2004 01:39:00 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
Jimmy-
In the meantime, show him love. Love is the only hope for us all. If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
Plautus is not reformable. He is a mentally unbalanced, paranoid delusional individual. The evidence here is about as clear as it can get. There is a discussion / evidence page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
In an informal poll, 23 users have expressed that they want Plautus to be banned. 3 or 4 users currently think that he can be reformed.
This situation is much clearer than it was with Clutch, and Clutch was banned. It is much clearer than it was with Helga, and Helga was banned. It is much clearer than it was with Lir, and Lir was banned.
I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be allowed to make such decisions in the first place.
We need quicker and more effective action against policy violations, or more users will be driven away in disgust. Wikipedia is a natural attraction point for cranks and crackpots. If you want to run an asylum, Jimbo, you should say so upfront. Otherwise we should refer these individuals to the proper institutions.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At 01:39 26/02/2004 +0100, you wrote:
I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be allowed to make such decisions in the first place.
We can't decide whether somebody is a cadidate for a ban unless somebody asks us to decide it, you know. We're not a police force. But thanks for the vote of confidence anyway.
Lee (Camembert)
Lee-
We can't decide whether somebody is a cadidate for a ban unless somebody asks us to decide it, you know.
No. You only accept cases for arbitration unless Jimbo explicitly refers them to you. This should be changed immediately. Jimbo is not involved enough in the day-to-day workings of the community to make these referral decisions.
How fast can you fix that? If we are talking about weeks rather than days it's time to return to vigilantism.
Regards,
Erik
Erik-
No. You only accept cases for arbitration unless Jimbo explicitly refers
Er, "if" he does refer them to you, not "unless", of course. I think that was a big mistake from the start, because on the one hand we have an explicit rejection of "vigilantism" and on the other hand we don't have a functioning alternative process.
Regards,
Erik
At 02:51 26/02/2004 +0100, Erik wrote:
Lee-
We can't decide whether somebody is a cadidate for a ban unless somebody asks us to decide it, you know.
No. You only accept cases for arbitration unless Jimbo explicitly refers them to you. This should be changed immediately. Jimbo is not involved enough in the day-to-day workings of the community to make these referral decisions.
How fast can you fix that? If we are talking about weeks rather than days it's time to return to vigilantism.
Well, I can't say how long it will take, because I simply don't know, but I sorely hope it will indeed be days rather than weeks. If we're not in a position to decide on hearing cases directly (ie, not through Jimbo) by this time next week then I'll be disappointed.
The problem is that we're all volunteers, and we have other committments. I've been very pressed for time recently and so unable to take part in the discussion much, so it's not really fair for me to criticise the slowness of the process. I honestly believe that the arbitrators as a whole are going as fast as they can.
All I can say is that I myself will make an effort to move things on a bit quicker.
Best Lee (Camembert)
Lee Pilich wrote:
At 02:51 26/02/2004 +0100, Erik wrote:
Lee-
We can't decide whether somebody is a cadidate for a ban unless
somebody
asks us to decide it, you know.
No. You only accept cases for arbitration unless Jimbo explicitly refers them to you. This should be changed immediately. Jimbo is not involved enough in the day-to-day workings of the community to make these referral decisions.
How fast can you fix that? If we are talking about weeks rather than days it's time to return to vigilantism.
Well, I can't say how long it will take, because I simply don't know, but I sorely hope it will indeed be days rather than weeks. If we're not in a position to decide on hearing cases directly (ie, not through Jimbo) by this time next week then I'll be disappointed.
The problem is that we're all volunteers, and we have other committments. I've been very pressed for time recently and so unable to take part in the discussion much, so it's not really fair for me to criticise the slowness of the process. I honestly believe that the arbitrators as a whole are going as fast as they can.
I can't understand why accusers are so impatient about getting results from the arbitration committee. One week would not be unduly long. Impatence should perhaps be taken as evidence that diminishes the impatient person's case. Impatience puts unfair pressure on volunteer arbitrators.
Ec
Because arbitration is the end of a long, painful process that has taken several weeks, if not months, to get there. We keep getting promises that something, somehow, will get accomplished, and we see absolutely zip.
RickK
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: I can't understand why accusers are so impatient about getting results from the arbitration committee. One week would not be unduly long. Impatence should perhaps be taken as evidence that diminishes the impatient person's case. Impatience puts unfair pressure on volunteer arbitrators.
Ec
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
Because arbitration is the end of a long, painful process that has taken
several weeks, if not months, to get there. We keep getting promises that something, somehow, will get accomplished, and we see absolutely zip.
RickK
I have to say I'm not someone who appreciates RickK's line here. Can I ask him whether he truly believes nothing will _ever_ come of this process? Or is it that he just feels that needling the arbitration committee will, by some mysterious process, benefit Wikipedia?
Charles
Yes, I truly believe that nothing will happen.
RickK
Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Because arbitration is the end of a long, painful process that has taken
several weeks, if not months, to get there. We keep getting promises that something, somehow, will get accomplished, and we see absolutely zip.
RickK
I have to say I'm not someone who appreciates RickK's line here. Can I ask him whether he truly believes nothing will _ever_ come of this process? Or is it that he just feels that needling the arbitration committee will, by some mysterious process, benefit Wikipedia?
Charles
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
At 01:21 26/02/2004 -0800, Ec wrote:
Well, I can't say how long it will take, because I simply don't know, but I sorely hope it will indeed be days rather than weeks. If we're not in a position to decide on hearing cases directly (ie, not through Jimbo) by this time next week then I'll be disappointed.
The problem is that we're all volunteers, and we have other committments. I've been very pressed for time recently and so unable to take part in the discussion much, so it's not really fair for me to criticise the slowness of the process. I honestly believe that the arbitrators as a whole are going as fast as they can.
I can't understand why accusers are so impatient about getting results from the arbitration committee. One week would not be unduly long. Impatence should perhaps be taken as evidence that diminishes the impatient person's case. Impatience puts unfair pressure on volunteer arbitrators.
Yes, but to be fair to our critics, they're not actually complaining about the length of time it takes to decide on a case once we accept it (which, as you say, is no more than a week). They're complaining about the fact that it takes us so long to accept the case in the first place. We're still not in a position to hear cases directly - we have to wait for Jimbo to refer them to us. The critics are seeing this as causing an unnecessary slow-down.
Of course, carefulness in making these decisions is no bad thing, and to be careful you have to be slow to some degree. But the problem isn't exactly that we're slow in making decisions as such; it's more that we're currently slow in deciding whether to consider making a decision or not (does that make sense?).
This is why I'm hoping we can complete our guidelines (or "policy" if you like) in some form in the next few days so we don't have to rely on Jimbo to refer cases to us. We can always refine the guidelines and our ways of working as we learn from experience and get feedback from other users. Then we can move on to all the other problems...
Lee (Camembert)
Erik Moeller wrote:
Lee-
We can't decide whether somebody is a cadidate for a ban unless somebody asks us to decide it, you know.
No. You only accept cases for arbitration unless Jimbo explicitly refers them to you. This should be changed immediately. Jimbo is not involved enough in the day-to-day workings of the community to make these referral decisions.
How fast can you fix that? If we are talking about weeks rather than days it's time to return to vigilantism.
From my understanding we're essentially at a "good enough" working draft of policies, which should be available in short order. I believe the new procedure will be essentially "ask for arbitration, and if 4 members of the committee agree, the case is heard". There's more explained in the policy, which I don't think has been posted yet (unless I just can't find it), but the gist of it that normally only cases that have had some attempt to mediate will be heard, but that's decided on a case-by-case basis (we're not going to force people to go through mediation that's obviously pointless from the start, because that just wastes the mediation committee's time, and turns them into a waypoint on the road to banning, while they're supposed to be a problem-resolution committee that makes bans unnecessary).
-Mark
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 19:39, Erik Moeller wrote:
This situation is much clearer than it was with Clutch, and Clutch was banned. It is much clearer than it was with Helga, and Helga was banned. It is much clearer than it was with Lir, and Lir was banned.
Something interesting to note: Lir is unbanned, he doesn't not participate in reversion wars. He doesn't make personal attacks anymore. On at least one occasion, he's requested meditation to resolve a dispute on an article. I wouldn't say he's everyone's top pick for Wikipedian poster child, but I can say that he's reformed.
Jimbo says that Ed is helping Plautus "learn the norms of the community", "has great hopes for his future", and has written to Jimbo "expressing a desire to change". Maybe reform is possible. I don't see the urgency in a quick and lasting ban, in that case. We'll see rather quickly if he's just buying time or if he has a true desire to join the community.
I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be allowed to make such decisions in the first place.
Sure they're a candidate. But let's let the committee make the decision.
cprompt a écrit:
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 19:39, Erik Moeller wrote:
This situation is much clearer than it was with Clutch, and Clutch was banned. It is much clearer than it was with Helga, and Helga was banned. It is much clearer than it was with Lir, and Lir was banned.
Something interesting to note: Lir is unbanned, he doesn't not participate in reversion wars.
Facts to ensure truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA http://en.wikipedia/org/wiki/Nucleic acid