[WikiEN-l] Re: Ban policy

Sat Jun 5 17:49:20 UTC 2004

John Robinson wrote:
>> in the last 6 months the AC has issued more user bans than Jimbo did 
>> two years
>> before that
> 
> 
> Indeed. Most of them for a symbolic 24 hours. This is fine for regular
> contributors who occasionally go off the deep end, but that's not what 
> most of
> the cases have involved. Wik's ban is over now, the only reason he's still
> gone is because he left on his own. Meanwhile Gohde and "Irismeister" are
> still up to their old tricks, exactly as before arbitration.
> 
>> Are you volunteering to be a member of the AC?
> 
> 
> No, I am saying that the concept of an AC has been tried, and does not work.
> I don't consider this to be the fault of the AC or any of the members of it,
> rather a problem with overall structure, confusion with regard to the amount
> of authority it holds, etc.

I acknowledge John's concern.

It is true that the AC has banned more people than Jimbo, but it is also 
true that there are many more trolls now than just 6 months ago. So far 
as I can remember, there has always been at least 1 problematic user at 
any point, but now, all the time, they are several.

So, I am not sure the comparison is relevant. Perhaps one of the reason 
Jimbo gave us the hand to do that, was precisely because it was 
requiring him more and more time.

-----

One issue is time. As you said, AC conclusion is often a very short time 
of banning. When this time is over, the game is on again. May I suggest 
that decisions taken by AC are two steps ones ?

Say a case is considered by AC
After a while, AC admits there is an issue, and that it is worth doing 
something, say banning for 1 week. The AC is important here, because we 
trust they make fair decisions, after they studied the case thoroughly

Could not the AC take 2 decisions at the same time ?
* first, immediate banning for perhaps 1 week
* second, additional decision already taken for "repetition of issue".
After the banning time is over, if the user starts being problematic, 
and is reported by xx contributors (perhaps 5 ?), the AC immediately 
release the second decision (perhaps 1 month banning).
- Either it is applied on the spot (that means that within ONE day 5 
contributors could report and the user be banned again).
- Or the second decision (taken by AC perhaps 2 weeks sooner during 
initial arbitration) is voted by contributors (agree, disagree, no 
opinion) during a few days. if there is general agreement, the AC second 
decision is applied.

-----

Second issue is transparency. I am sure people are worried and get 
nervous, because they do not know enough what is going on during the AC

-----

Third point is evolution. I think there will be no go back in time. 
Structurally speaking, Wikipedia will have more and more trolls as it 
grows and develops and gets famous, and AS USERS BECOME MORE AND MORE 
PROTECTIVE TOWARD ITS CONTENT.

I think some trolling cases would have less impact if people just gave 
it less attention.

(belle définition du trollisme d'ailleurs...)