Yann Forget a écrit:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Le Friday 05 December 2003 15:57, Andre Engels a écrit :
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would like to encourage a similar setup on the
larger non-English
wikipedias, perhaps customized to some extent to fit localized needs.
But the overall concept is to have in place clear methods for group
decision making that are respectful of our overall ideals.
On the English wikipedia, this was not necessary until now, but on the
other wikipedias I think that it is necessary sooner because there is
no real way for me to be an effective benevolent dictator.
So, let's discuss this.
As far as my experience from the Dutch Wikipedia is, I do not see any
need for this kind of institute yet. De facto the ruling is currently
done by a relatively large group, consisting basically of the regular
contributors (including but not restricted to the sysops). What
conflicts there are that do not get immediately and amicably resolved,
usually are between a single new user and several existing users. That
would hardly be helped by mediation or arbitration, as a new user
would see such as a clique protecting each other any way. Besides,
they usually tend to either change their ways into something more
fitting or leave Wikipedia well before that.
Andre Engels
For the French WP, I would say like Andre. Up to now, most of the problems
have been solved by discussion and consensus. In the case of the recently
banned user, it is after that any other solution was tried that a unanimous
vote decided to ban him.
Yann
I waited for a while to see what french would say about this. And
indeed, I am not surprised by your comment Yann.
There is somehow an arbitration commitee. We saw it on Papotages issue.
The arbitration commitee involved basically any user that have been
there for a couple of weeks. Every one was allowed to speak up on
Papotages banning issue. Being a sysop or not made *no* difference
whatsoever.
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 hardly dare to say that the banning when it was pronounced, was *not*
unanimous as you claim it was. You are arranging the truth Yann. It was
perhaps very widely consensual; but on the 11th of november, if you
claim it was unanimous, you are just lying. That our opinion was said
non acceptable is one thing, however, I would appreciate that you
recognised minorities opinions existed.
Of course, we will agree that *now* there is unanimity. But it was not
such on the banning day.
The second is about mediation. As you say, we tried. Not all of us, not
in an organised way, but we tried; and failed.
However, I am sorry to say that several users, up to 2 months before the
user was banned, considered any attempt at mediation, as troll feeding,
and actively empeached the process of mediation, as they were already
activity trying to out Papotages.
That certainly did not help.
I see not how mediation could ever be used properly on fr, as long as it
is seen as a destructive or dangerous process for wikipedia, as I was
told by some people.
Setting up an official group of people who could help could have the
benefit to make it clear to all, that mediation is meant to *help*, not
to further *damage* Wikipedia.
In short, the banning process looked ok to me. The mediation one was a
disaster :-)
And one of the reason why Former User left Wikipedia in disgust.
I would be happy to read Aoineko opinion on mediation.