Hi all,
I'm the one who decided to discuss the things at IA.wikipedia for some
reasons:
-The blocked user can not join a talk at NL, because he has been blocked.
The online way to talk with him is outside NL.wikipedia.
-At NL we could not talk normally about the case, because too many users are
involving theirselves. Everybody is able to join the talk after sending me
an email message, like I anounced.
-De discussion at IA does not trouble anybody, because it's lonely. We don't
discuss the case in a pub, we use a special page in the Wikipedia namespace.
If we are doing something really bad, I'm sorry. I act there with the best
meaning, trying to solve the conflict.
Greetings,
Johan Bos (Jcb)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erwin Wessels" <erwin(a)transpontine.com>
To: "De discussielijst van de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia"
<wikinl-l(a)wikipedia.org>rg>; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiNL-l] Fight spilling over into the ia.wikipedia
Hi all,
Sander, thanks for your clarifications. I would, however, like to see us
not discussing the details of the troll(s), etcetera, but what Gerard
formulated as
"I have however a problem with the fact that a small wikipedia, the
ia:wikipedia (Interlingua) is abused by being the host for a quarrel of
another wikipedia. I think this is unacceptable. I would appreciate some
discussion about this and as much as I hate rules, I think if there must
be a rule to prevent this, so be it."
First of all, I don't have (and don't particularly want to have) any
knowledge of what exactly went on, _before_ (as per the description of
Gerard) the moving of a quarrel from one wikipedia to another, but I
can't but agree with him that people who start a quarrel in their local
pub shouldn't move to another pub down the road to fight it out.
As to the enforcement of this sentiment: well, yeah, I suppose it would
have to be a rule, and it would require policing for enforcement. I'm
not entirely sure, however, if such a rule wouldn't be too specific for
it's own good, if you catch my drift.
Just my 2c,
-Erwin
Sander Spek wrote:
Hi all,
I don't know whether my message will get through on the
foundation list (since I am not subscribed), but I want to make
some corrections.
* Gerard Meijssen:
This user is the persona of a known anonymous
vandal who has a
history of using different IP-numbers.
...which could be his provider's policy, and cannot be used as a
charge against him.
When he was banned for a week, he started with
sockpupputs.
It is not proven the aliases were his. One of the aliases
posted on Wikipedia that he is not the 'troll', and the 'troll'
has always denied he had these sockpuppets.
In the mean time one users tried to mediate, but
made the
mistake to identify to much with one party and not listening to
the others.
Not one user. A mediating committee has been created, on the
initiative of this user. More people are part of this committee,
including myself.
This user might have identified too much with one party, but on
the other hand the other party did not really co-operate in the
mediation.
It resulted in the discussion being moved to
another wikipedia
Yes, the discussion turned into a chaos, and the person who
initiated the mediating committee created a space on another
wikipedia, where the mediating could take place without too much
interference of other users.
For your information I am NOT involved in this
quarrel.
But you did take a standpoint in the vote about a ban for the
'troll'.
(I tried only to make corrections, and to omit my personal
opinion.)
Sander
[[nl:Gebruiker:SanderSpek]]
_______________________________________________
WikiNL-l discussielijst
WikiNL-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinl-l