Regrettably, there seem very few wikt. people handing OTRS inquiries about the project, and without going in to too many details I've seen far too many entries in that queue where it is "I've been blocked - forever - without warning".
A few months back I had cause to raise this issue on-wiki, and Florence got involved. I'm not going to dig up the contributions on this, but we were all told to "enjoy our wikidrama" and Florence's position was discounted - just another Wikipedian interfering.
Block with no warning is - in most cases - unacceptable, and I'm sure most people here would agree with that. I don't make a lot of use of wiktionary, but if people don't get {{test}} and {{don't disrupt}} templates then I do not believe the project's administrators are doing their job properly.
I'm sure some might argue this should have been raised on the wiktionary mailing list, but I believe if a project has - as in this case - earned a reputation for capriciously wielding the banhammer it needs the wider Wikimedia community to say this is unacceptable.
Brian McNeil
Hoi, There is more then just one Wiktionary. What Wiktionary are you talking about? You assume that things are in a certain way on the Wiktionaries, you state that this should be discussed on the Wiktionary list, but this never happened. The suggestion that things are unacceptable on a foundation level because you expect that Wikipedia assumptions are true on other projects is problematic. Wiktionary is much more black and white; it has a more structured organization.
When you are of the opinion that OTRS should have a separate queue for Wiktionary, I would agree with you.
Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 29, 2007 11:51 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Regrettably, there seem very few wikt. people handing OTRS inquiries about the project, and without going in to too many details I've seen far too many entries in that queue where it is "I've been blocked - forever - without warning".
A few months back I had cause to raise this issue on-wiki, and Florence got involved. I'm not going to dig up the contributions on this, but we were all told to "enjoy our wikidrama" and Florence's position was discounted - just another Wikipedian interfering.
Block with no warning is - in most cases - unacceptable, and I'm sure most people here would agree with that. I don't make a lot of use of wiktionary, but if people don't get {{test}} and {{don't disrupt}} templates then I do not believe the project's administrators are doing their job properly.
I'm sure some might argue this should have been raised on the wiktionary mailing list, but I believe if a project has - as in this case - earned a reputation for capriciously wielding the banhammer it needs the wider Wikimedia community to say this is unacceptable.
Brian McNeil
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Looking at the last 50 English wiktionary blocks at http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page= I see that the longest blocks were 4 one year blocks: 2 open proxies and 2 external link spammers.
Looking at contributions of infinite account blocks at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist of non sock accounts, where the edit wasn't deleted, I see only http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=maxim&diff=prev&oldid=3462092. That no warnings were given simply means that the wikt admins are trying to create a dictionary instead of playing whack-a-mole with the obvious vandalizing only accounts and spammers. OTRS is there for any bad blocks.
If the ORS tickets (all emails sent to info-en@wiktionary.org) were for really bad vandals, then there isn't a problem. Looking thru the queue for open block tickets, there's ticket 2007122410005487 where the IP didn't get an infinite block as claimed, but 1 day; and ticket 2007121710004036 about an entry deleted by 3 different admins because it's obviously spam and not a dictionary entry.
Please provide some diffs which resulted in incorrect infinite blocks. The wiktionarians, stewards, or foundation can then look into it.
You can review the discussion where Florence got involved at the following URL,
http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cynewulf&oldid=2935...
No project is trying to play "whack a mole" and we *all* want to get on with producing content. I've issued my fair share of blocks on Wikinews, but if someone from another project wants to question a block I'm going to explain myself - provided CheckUser evidence isn't involved.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jeandré du Toit Sent: 29 December 2007 12:55 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiktionary blocking policy
Looking at the last 50 English wiktionary blocks at http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&p age= I see that the longest blocks were 4 one year blocks: 2 open proxies and 2 external link spammers.
Looking at contributions of infinite account blocks at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist of non sock accounts, where the edit wasn't deleted, I see only http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=maxim&diff=prev&oldid=3462092. That no warnings were given simply means that the wikt admins are trying to create a dictionary instead of playing whack-a-mole with the obvious vandalizing only accounts and spammers. OTRS is there for any bad blocks.
If the ORS tickets (all emails sent to info-en@wiktionary.org) were for really bad vandals, then there isn't a problem. Looking thru the queue for open block tickets, there's ticket 2007122410005487 where the IP didn't get an infinite block as claimed, but 1 day; and ticket 2007121710004036 about an entry deleted by 3 different admins because it's obviously spam and not a dictionary entry.
Please provide some diffs which resulted in incorrect infinite blocks. The wiktionarians, stewards, or foundation can then look into it.
I'm not sure the problem is as dire as you make it sound (or that there even is a single practice by Wiktionary admins), but I'll assume it is for the sake of argument:
Brian McNeil wrote:
Block with no warning is - in most cases - unacceptable
This is not a universal rule. It's a simple point to make, but you seem to be taking the opposite to be true as an assumption.
I'm sure some might argue this should have been raised on the wiktionary mailing list, but I believe if a project has - as in this case - earned a reputation for capriciously wielding the banhammer it needs the wider Wikimedia community to say this is unacceptable.
I don't think it does. A foundation-l thread started by a community outsider nicely misses all the shared community norms and consensus that have developed over the years, as well as familiarity with the actual circumstances of the project (like having what I would say is one of the highest article-to-recent-changes-patrollers ratios to be found). The problem here isn't just that none of the English Wiktionary admins has been informed that "the wider Wikimedia community" views their practices as unacceptable, but that it is a fact for any community, whether it's Wiktionary, Wikipedia or Wikinews that you have no chance of change unless you are actually making your arguments to the people you disagree with. I recommend you actually engage in discussion with Wiktionary editors and, say, present *reasons* for why you disagree with their practices. After all, I'm sure that Wiktionarians have their own reasons for doing what they do. :-)
Dominic
I have added something to the discussion on Wiktionary.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Blocking_policy_discus sion.
Brian McNeil
On Dec 29, 2007 5:51 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote: [snip]
Block with no warning is - in most cases - unacceptable, and I'm sure most people here would agree with that. I don't make a lot of use of wiktionary, but if people don't get {{test}} and {{don't disrupt}} templates then I do not believe the project's administrators are doing their job properly.
[snip]
Brian McNeil
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Every project sets its own standards for who can be blocked without warning - I blocked the account that created [[Brian Pepper on Wheels]] without warning and I doubt anyone would question that decision. Is there some overall standard for all projects on when this becomes acceptable that comes from the foundation?
Cheers WilyD
Block with no warning is - in most cases - unacceptable, and I'm sure most people here would agree with that. I don't make a lot of use of wiktionary, but if people don't get {{test}} and {{don't disrupt}} templates then I do not believe the project's administrators are doing their job properly.
A few points are worth making here. First, the other projects are not wikipedia, and there is no reason to suspect that the same rules, guidelines and standards that are common on Wikipedia are going to be common anywhere else. I know that on Wikibooks, we are far less lenient with our vandals then the Wikipedians are, and we suffer far fewer vandalism attacks because of it. We do, of course, have an appeals process for the occasional false-positive (it's never come up), but I have no reason to assume that en.Wiktionary would have the same or even a similar process to what we have.
What constitutes an administrators "job" varies from project to project, and what constitutes the "proper" performance of that job also varies. What kinds of behavior the wikitionary community have discussed and agreed upon amongst themselves may be completely different from the decisions reached on en.wp. I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the volunteers of another community without knowing more of the background information, if I were you.
I'm sure some might argue this should have been raised on the wiktionary mailing list, but I believe if a project has - as in this case - earned a reputation for capriciously wielding the banhammer it needs the wider Wikimedia community to say this is unacceptable.
If you want all the projects to conform to some basic, minimum standard, then it behouves us to put that standard into writing. I think such an effort would be doomed to failure, but maybe the "minimum" is small enough so as not to raise too many objections. Also, if we want the board of the "Wikimedia Community" to get involved, it would be good to specify how such an intervention would even take place.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Dec 30, 2007 1:08 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
Block with no warning is - in most cases - unacceptable, and I'm sure most people here would agree with that. I don't make a lot of use of wiktionary, but if people don't get {{test}} and {{don't disrupt}} templates then I do not believe the project's administrators are doing their job properly.
A few points are worth making here. First, the other projects are not wikipedia, and there is no reason to suspect that the same rules, guidelines and standards that are common on Wikipedia are going to be common anywhere else. I know that on Wikibooks, we are far less lenient with our vandals then the Wikipedians are, and we suffer far fewer vandalism attacks because of it. We do, of course, have an appeals process for the occasional false-positive (it's never come up), but I have no reason to assume that en.Wiktionary would have the same or even a similar process to what we have.
What constitutes an administrators "job" varies from project to project, and what constitutes the "proper" performance of that job also varies. What kinds of behavior the wikitionary community have discussed and agreed upon amongst themselves may be completely different from the decisions reached on en.wp. I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the volunteers of another community without knowing more of the background information, if I were you.
I'm sure some might argue this should have been raised on the wiktionary mailing list, but I believe if a project has - as in this case - earned a reputation for capriciously wielding the banhammer it needs the wider Wikimedia community to say this is unacceptable.
If you want all the projects to conform to some basic, minimum standard, then it behouves us to put that standard into writing. I think such an effort would be doomed to failure, but maybe the "minimum" is small enough so as not to raise too many objections. Also, if we want the board of the "Wikimedia Community" to get involved, it would be good to specify how such an intervention would even take place.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As far as I know, there is no Foundation directive for the handling of vandals. I'd personally like to see us -much- less lenient with vandals on en.wp (one warning, do it again you're gone), I really see nothing wrong with getting rid of people who come around to disrupt rather than contribute.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org