[Wikipedia-l] Re: Arbitration/mediation on en

Anthere anthere8 at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 6 11:28:57 UTC 2003



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_Papotages
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=C%E9r%E9ales_Killer 


:-)

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 ?





More information about the Wikipedia-l mailing list