On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 16:10, Gareth Owen wrote: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> writes: Yes, please. Troublemakers (like Wik, Iriskook and Plautus) only have to show a slight bit of subtlety and we bend over backwards to please them, frequently alienating actual, useful contributors. Gareth Owen Oh, please no. The dangers are more salient than the benefits. We can afford to lose any number of users to exasperation with vandals and trolls. What we can not afford is to create (even with the best of intentions) a insular culture of obeisance and initiatory progression through the ranks. Sysophood is already too often withheld from unpopular users(/users holding unpopular views). Openness is the jewel of wikipedia, and it should be protected at nearly any cost. I understand the will to prevent useful users from leaving in frustration, but we must be more concerned about the whole of wikipedia, than any one, or even several users. "The law created before me, shall outlast me." As much as it pains us all, it is _most_ important to lay down rules which can be justified without reference to current cases, and personages. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)

Gareth Owen wrote: "We can afford this!" - "No we can't!" - No offense, people, but some rational arguments would probably go a somewhat longer way... It certainly felt like a progression towards a promotion to me. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone there. Sometimes, what most people perceive something to be is more important to consider than what you perceive it to be (a.k.a. what you think it actually is). Timwi

At 14:44 26/02/2004 +0000, Gareth wrote: I don't think the committees are supposed to be achieving anything new, really, so if they achieved anything of note, it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing... Think back to 18 months ago: if there was a very serious dispute that was causing a lot of trouble, then Jimbo would talk to the involved parties and try to resolve it. If it couldn't be resolved and the problem really was serious, then he might ban somebody. I think this system worked well. Now Jimbo has said that he wants to slowly withdraw from having such a big role in these sorts of decisions (him doing everything wasn't scalable in any case). So we have the mediation committee which exists to amicably resolve disputes between arguing parties, and the arbitration committee which exists to consider bans or other binding solutions in serious cases. They're just doing the same job that Jimbo used to do on his own. The past couple of months have been a bit rough. We've had some dodgy users come along and cause some upset, and those people they've upset haven't seen any clear way to complain and get something done about the situation. Hopefully the committees will give them a way. Yes, it's another layer of beaurocracy, and yes that's awful, but we've got to deal with these problems somehow, and I'm not sure there's a credible alternative at the moment (vigilantism may solve one problem but it creates another). We've got to remember that the nature of the Wikipedia is such that there will always be conflict to some degree, and there will always be trouble. There's no magic way to stop it altogether. We're in the business of damage limitation really, and that's no easy task either. Lee (Camembert, off to write some articles)

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: |Oh, please no. Agree completely. Also agree. People do vote for political reasons. I can see the start of political camps forming in Wikipedia which worries me. There is also a fair amount of obedience to sysops which is wrong as well. I guess these are the dynamics of groups. It's far too open to abuse. There is an element of popularity contest about it. No-one seems to object to banning unpopular users. The truth is, I don't trust some sysops not to ban people for political reasons, or to ban people they've previously been fighting with. Therefore a definite no. Caroline / Secretlondon

Gareth Owen wrote: Well, what's "abuse" versus "unpopular political opinions" seems to vary depending on the particular dispute. In the Germany/Poland and Israel/Palestine disputes, for example, there've been more than a few calls for various people to be banned primarily because they were seen as an "anti-Polish activist" or "right-wing Israeli apologist" or whatnot, rather than because of any particular abuse (though sometimes abuse is also alleged, but it usually seems to not be the primary issue). Three examples that come to mind are Nico for his pro-German-names advocacy, Srpska for his pro-Serbian-nationalist advocacy, and OneVoice for his pro-Israeli-right advocacy (none of whom I personally feel should be banned, temporarily or otherwise, but all of whom at least one person has asked to be banned). -Mark