[WikiEN-l] Re: Two users left because of Wik

[Jimmy Wales]

Tim Starling wrote:
> The arbitration committee does not have to be like Jimbo; always
> hesitant to act except in the most egregious cases.

I agree, and I also want to lend moral support to the idea that times
are changing, and times have changed.  Early in the project, in order
to be sure to achieve the critical mass for success, it was absolutely
important (in my mind) to be as open and accepting as possible... we
needed the people, even ones who were kind of a pain in the ass.

That is not as true now, and has not been as true for a long time.

There's a delicate balancing act here -- being open to newcomers is
crucial for the preservation of neutrality and quality.  We are a very
diverse group politically and religiously and philosophically and so
on, and we want to keep it that way.  But even maintaining that, we
could be guilty of cabalism, of being cliquish and closed, of refusing
to listen to new advice that makes us uncomfortable.

At the same time, though, it must be stated that we have much less
danger of that at the present time, than we have of being unbalanced
in a different way, i.e. having the community become unpleasant and
unco-operative over time as attrition tends to leave an increasing
ratio of jerks to kindhearted, helpful, thoughtful, loving, respectful
people.

> The community will squabble amongst itself forever about whether
> users should be kept on or banned. This bickering damages the
> community. What I want from the arbitration committee is decisive
> leadership aimed at the betterment of the encyclopedia project.  I
> don't want a legalistic process or proof beyond reasonable doubt.

What do you think of my idea of changing our "constitution" so that
quickpolls can be more broadly used for temp-bans, such that the
arbitration committee can be more of an appeals board?

I think what works for me about this idea is this.  If 80% + 8 vote
minimum of users in a 24 hour period think that someone should be
banned, and then if ultimately after a couple of weeks of evidence
gathering and talking to all the parties involved, the user is allowed
back in, then IN THAT CASE, the punishment will *still* fit the crime,
since annoying enough people to get an 80% majority for a ban
certainly warrants a 2 week cooling off period at a minimum.

> Of course it's true that you can't really keep anyone out of a wiki if
> they're determined to circumvent technical measures. The value of leadership
> is to end the in-fighting, and to avoid the sense of betrayal so many
> Wikipedians feel when they are attacked for defending the community against
> a troll.

That's right.

I should point out, not in support of Wik, but just by way of comment,
that the great irony about Wik is that he's sort of an anti-troll
troll.  He claims, and I have little reason to doubt his sincerity of
belief, that his annoying actions are just proper responses to various
troublemakers on the site.

--Jimbo