[Wikipedia-l] RFC on a few feature requests

[Jimmy Wales]

Anthere wrote:
> 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.

O.k., well, in a situation like that I would not agree, unless the
banned person was doing something destructive.  Simply disagreeing
with the majority is not good cause for banning.

Another way to take a break from an argument is to just: take a break.

> 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 ?

Typically, the 2nd sysop would unban the person, and as a courtesy the
1st sysop would go along with it.  Usually this is all accompanied
with consultations with others.  There's a very strong presumption
against banning people.

> Well, I dropped the
> matter, and unban all the ips after a week. That's
> all.

That sounds like a good idea.

> 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 don't think there's any simple formula for this.  I'd say that if
there's any major dispute over whether it is vandalism, then it really
isn't.

In our experience on en.wikipedia, the line between vandalism and
simple "bad writing" has always so far been pretty easy to draw.

If someone takes a good article, and edits it so it isn't as good,
that's not usually vandalism.  The right thing to do is to revert to
the old version, while editing it and attempting to accomodate any
legitimate points that the newcomer was trying to make.

> 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.

Right.  I think that many social issues are caused by limitations of
the usemod software.  For example, "destructive delete" has always
been problematic.

> Both sides are not equal in the fight when one side is
> 1, and the other side is 10 people with sysop power.

That's true enough, except that as a matter of honor, I think that
sysops should not use their sysop power "in a fight".

There are three basic reasons that we have sysops.  First,
historically there have been some useful features that are
"destructive" -- deleting.  Second, there are sometimes true vandals,
and it's nice for people to be able to ban them right away instead of
waiting for me to do something about it.  And finally, there are some
commands (direct SQL queries) that might be really slow and should
therefore be used only rarely.

> 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.

Yeah, me too.

I fear that current tensions in the world (United States, 9/11, Iraq,
Europe, etc.) may lead to tensions in our little world.  This is not
necessary and it is something we should all be careful about.  We have
a peaceful humanitarian mission here that is bigger than the current
world political scene.

> 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.

O.k., well, I'm willing to defer to your judgment, then.  I understand
that these issues are complex and messy.

> 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.

Sadly, I do not.  So it is important for me to listen to you and
trust your reports.

> 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.

That's right.  I can't do that.  So I have to trust the judgment of
those who speak French, to a very large degree.

--Jimbo