Yann Forget a écrit:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I suppose though, that if recent users have declared themselves against the banning, their opinion would have been discarded. Their opinion was receivable because they agreed with the general opinion.
I don't think so. Where did you find this Anthere ?
I did not find this Yann. I wrote it was an opinion based on recent events (I wrote "I suppose"). I did not say this was entirely abnormal either. It is quite understandable that there is suspicion that new commers are just trolls, and voting against the flood to make things more complicated. For example, some people thought Mulot a newbie, and when she wrote she opposed Traroth as an admin, she was answered she had less than 200 edits, hence was not allowed to speak up. I guess no one would have complained if she had said she was favorable to Traroth.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia%3AAdministrateurs
In reality, Mulot has been on wikipedia more than a year ago, for a while. She often write anonymously, but given the amount of stuff she wrote on religion, she sure won the right to give her opinion.
Ihmo.
This is a fact. So, all I say is that perhaps we should better define for next time, who precisely, has the right to speak up for a ban decision (lentgh of presence, number of edits, whatever).
Of course, we will agree that *now* there is unanimity. But it was not such on the banning day.
That is obviously false. Look at the archives: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikip%E9dia:Prise_de_d%E9cision% 2C_bannir_Papotages&diff=156213&oldid=156212
That link is not working I suggest this one http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3APrise_de_d%E9cision%2C_bannir_Pap... Under the "against" line, there are two names written. In claiming I am saying something false, you are being false, and you are being very unnice to Ryo and I. There was very very large support, but not unanimity
The second is about mediation. As you say, we tried. Not all of us, not in an organised way, but we tried; and failed.
For to be a mediation, there is necessary an agreement on the principle of mediation. I think that Papotages never agreed on anything like this. I am not even sure he agreed to have *sincere* discussions.
I see that you have disagreements with a lot of people, up to the point to scare them away. :( cf. [[User:Céréales Killer]] below.
I see not what is the relationship with the current issue at hand.
We are talking of mediation Yann, not about my relationships with CK, which are ok as far as I know
For a scared away contributor, CK is quite active http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=...
:-)
I only asked that CK candidacy to be a sysop be delayed for a month.
But I was the first one to *ever* dare to say I disaproved of someone named sysop. I guess it is a bit hard on the one who is disapproved, so I understand this reaction of him.
You did not answer to the proposition about mediation Yann. What do you think of it ? What was your experience in trying to mediate with Papotages ? My own experience was that instead of talking of the issue at hand (Papotages), some said I was feeding the troll, and subsequently attacked me on my other activities, such as saying to someone I disagreed for him to be a sysop. This has hardly any relationship.
So how do you think we can help a difficult user ? Do we decide to get rid of a problematic user as soon as possible to ensure the cohesion of the group, or do we try to make them join us ?