[WikiEN-l] RE: I made something like a summary

Thu Oct 2 23:01:39 UTC 2003

>it's a way of stopping things from happening faster
>than the list members can react. It's also a usful
way >to cause someone to do what they should be doing
when >involved in a heavy dispute: take deep breath,
sleep >on it and come back the next day.

I dearly agree with you

>I suggest the following: one administrator or 3
sysops >who have not previously been involved in the
issue can >decide to put the temporary ban in place
and raise the >matter on the mailing list then or as
soon as the >request is made. Ban lifted in 12 hours
(or 24?) or if >3 people on the list say so, after
reviewing the >situation, not out of general dislike
for bans. Ban >not lifted if the list result is longer
term ban.

Administrator and sysops mean the same.

Perhaps you meant developer by admin ? If so, it is
not a good idea. Though we love and trust our
developers, several don't think they should have more
weight than others in this type of decision.
Especially since in reality only Erik risks to oppose
the group in doing so. Several people precisely
consider he has no right to do so.
3 sysops is a better choice. Note that in that case,
there certainly were at least 3 sysops supporting the
banning, though admitedly, no open discussion was made
on the topic of course.

24/48 hours is a good time to cool down. Though
perhaps not in this case.

>That gives the list the greatest possible notice and
>cuts the potential for inappropriate use of the
>capability, while still letting it be used to give
the >list time to start to react to a rapidly
developing >situation.

nod

>On a different subject, RK is an interesting and
tough >problem. Some of the hardest choices I've had
to make >have been when, in dictator position with a
philosophy >resembling that I've seen Jimbo express
here, I've had >to decide that the interest of the
community is best >served by asking or compelling a
contributor to depart >because their discouraging
effect on others does more >harm than the good of
their contributions. There's >some reason to believe
that this may apply for RK but >the case hasn't been
made yet, just claimed. This is >just about the
toughest decision Jimbo will have to >make, so if you
think RK needs to be banned for this >reason, please
gather the case together with a >collection of
specific examples for Jimbo and others >to review.

At some point, I wonder what is the real difference
between a case being made and a case claimed. I am
serious here.

As for gathering...I...doubt... many would deny here
that RK is often using inappropriate words, is naming
others vandals, calling for ban on them, and rather
generously accusing others of being antisemites and
nazi.

The argument might be between those with tough skins
who think it is not so important, and those who have a
hard time to cope with it and are driven away from
articles where RK edit.
Giving more credit for the thin skin position would be
offering more humanity and compassion, and probably
favor diversity in editors.
And giving more credit for the thick skin position
might be selecting stronger people perhaps more fit to
cope with wikipedia environmental conditions. Both
points of view are defendable I guess.

The other argument might be up to which point RK being
a good editor (or an important editor to assure
balance on very controversial topics as 172 argue) is
enough to balance him being a difficult editor.
Accepting him as such would (arguably) benefit some
articles, and officially set a leval of rudeness
tolerance depending on the perceived benefit one bring
to the project.
Not accepting would be (arguably) a loss to the
project, and would set clearer behavioral guidelines,
similar to anyone.

It is perhaps up to us (or to Jimbo ?) to decide if
the place is a jungle or a garden ?

As for the collection of cases, the most recent were
listed on meta, since (that is what I understood) it
was considered anti wikilove, to gather evidence about
a difficult user. I doubt not that if necessary we can
set a list of those who shared a conflict with RK.
However, I would prefer that we do not come to this.
Mud moving is not good. This is a difficult topic as
some argue we should avoid gathering evidence for the
sake of good relationships, and some argue that
evidence is necessary to ban someone.

>OK, enough boldness for my first post to this list.
>I'm the user:JamesDay Alex756 has mentioned a few
>times in recent discussons on legal issues. Not a
>lawyer, just a community manager with a keen interest
>in online community law. More background on my user
>page.
>
>James

the one with attached name ? :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com