--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Mulot was banned for a week because she tried to propose another angle of view, an historical
timeline,
that could enrich the wiki.
Who did the ban?
Ha. I honestly can't answer for at least 4 people tried. Me included. Let's say we collectively hit the button. For we didnot know how to do it and had to ask around. It was to have a break from a discussion that was leading nowhere. All the people there agreed at that time (that is, except Mulot of course). But if I decided to do it, it was for everybody to have a break. I am not entirely sure why other people did it.
Another user was banned along because he "made the mistake" to state of
few
truths.
Well, this is a bit vague, but I'm listening. This doesn't sound like a good reason to ban someone.
It wasnot a good reason. I disagreed with that banning. Does it never happen on the en.wiki that a sysop ban somebody and another disagree with the decision ? What happens then ? Well, I dropped the matter, and unban all the ips after a week. That's all.
I have no problem with your decision of being the
only
one with the right to ban logged-in user, but
Well, that's not exactly what I've said. :-) I think that being logged in or not logged in is really not important.
I personally see no difference between these cases.
What's important is that none of us (even me) ban anyone for anything other than outright vandalism, without a long discussion first. And after that discussion, it falls on me to make a final decision.
But then, WHAT is outright vandalism ??? deleting a page : yes. Entirely removing content of a page : yes. Posting some goat stuff : yes. But does changing the content of an article vandalism ??? "how much change" is vandalisme ???
I was not online the day that happened, so it is hard to exactly know what happen. I'm not sure what I saw was vandalism or not. Was too messy. Others that were there could say better. But what I read were one deciding to change things without explanation beforehands, other adults reversing over and over and over what she was trying to do, and threatening to ban, and then some adults coming to a talking behavior and direct attack that I personally view as not acceptable. I saw people talking over the other's behavior much more than talking over the issue.
Clearly there was *much* try of discussion with Mulot. And it was not successful. But then, how much room is left when 5 to 10 people are flooding 1 alone ? none present trying to make the debate more neutral ?
In reality, what would have probably been the best solution would have been to protect the page, just to keep the discussion live. But this is not possible in usemod.
- people can still delete pages of those they
don't
agree with, instead of talking
This is by using a destructive delete? No one is supposed to use a destructive delete in an argument. If they blank the page, well, that's rude, but the other person can restore it from the history.
yes, that is supposed not to be used. However, one suggested that option, to copy the page. Let her play with it. Then delete it. And recreate it with the old stuff. We didnot do that.
Episodes like this are unpleasant, but tend to end fairly quickly, and both sides are "equal" in the fight.
Both sides are not equal in the fight when one side is 1, and the other side is 10 people with sysop power.
- I forecast threats of forking again, when french
will know about that
I don't think there will be a fork.
Good. I don't think either. But I am tired to hear some saying "we want that, and if the english are annoying us, we fork". That's unproductive. And that's tiring. And that is not what I believe best.
It seems that fr.wikipedia.com is still on the Usemod software. So I could take away sysop privileges by changing the password. I won't do that right now, but I do not think that people should be banned for the things you have mentioned.
Yes you could do that. But I think that would not be fair in the sense none of the sysop took decisions that were not carefully thought of and asked by the other wikipedians. I feel *very* incomfortable with the way consensus and neutrality are achieved on the fr, but not with the way we used blocking options.
When I say I see no pb with you taking the final decision, I definitly see a problem in you not being able to fully understand the context. Unless you read french of course. And I can't figure how you would extensively discuss the matter with the user being the problem if this one is not able to manage *your* langage.
But, I have only so far heard your side of the story.
very true. The middle side. You may ask others. Aoineko, Erwan, Shaihulud, Curry, Mokona, Youssefsan, Athymik, Xavier might tell you more. If they wish.
But if you want a *fair* view of what happened, you might try to find the various people who most probably represented Mulot or the six. They were a pain, but they had it right.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com