Yes, there's nothing wrong with saying "This policy from en.wp seems sensible, maybe we should have something similar?" This is different from slavish imitation.

Hello, Jade. Wp99 is blocked as a sock puppet of very long term abuse user suspected using enormous sock puppets in jawp. I know my following request is rude, but I can't find your activity. Jade, please give me your edit history in any project. Jade Harold wrote: as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted. ---- [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hello, Huib. O.K.  I promise to stop this if Jade would declare her/his edit history or other activity - I think it's very very easy -. Huib! wrote: ----   [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Chad wrote: This particular fight doesn't, no. But it does tangentially touch on the broader issue of cross-wiki policies, and instances where certain wikis "go rogue" (for instance, those that have instituted privacy policy violating user tracking systems, or where only one or two sysops exist and exercise de facto control over the entire list). I have to say, this is far from the first time I've heard stories of ja.wp administrators taking their private grievances out on contributors.  Now we have them demanding that mailing users "declare their edit history or other activity?" What's next? "Let me see your identification papers?" The broader issue of "what standards should apply cross-project and cross-community" and "who should be responsible for ensuring/enforcing that certain projects do not adopt policies that violate the Foundation's mission or standards" is worthy of question on this list. I would assume that the answer to the latter question is "the stewards", but the latter question can't be solved until the former question of cross-project standards is resolved; and I don't think that it has been. If I'm wrong of course, and we've had this discussion before, I would love to be pointed to it. -Dan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote: The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki.  When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing.  Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

From: Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM Alright, but what about the case of a Wiki where there are perhaps 3 active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? It is the Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first place. I do believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to get involved in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some that should be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a megalomaniac run a Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems unacceptable to me. Mark On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SB<birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: wrote: Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT Wikis. In nonstandard who foundation local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki.  When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing.  Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

From: Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 3:41 PM I'm talking about more general policy, not ja.wp in particular. On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: exceptional treatment. users. wrote: Interlingual Coordinationn - their will? first Foundation to are some seems Policy will smaller orthographies, people Wiki by actions of  When non-foundation informed that wikis is logistics of _______________________________________________ -- skype: node.ue _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

My point is that this situation has arisen many times in the past and the response is very frequently a simple "We can't help you, it's a local issue". Of course it should be dealt with at a local level but I think that the foundation should be a little less hands-off than it has often been when it comes to smaller communities where people have been allowed to wield tremendous influence just because they got to a wiki first.

From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:31 AM Birgitte SB wrote: policy for exceptions.  I think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct attention to them when they are noticed.  and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest, rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are in danger of developing such situations.  Not that I would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task on.  It is just that it is very tricky.  It probably would be more effective to wait till the locals complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the wiki, of mismanagement.  Oftentimes locals that even have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the devil you know, etc.  It is very touchy situation that leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks the same language. As much as I have always supported project autonomy, I know from experience on Wikisource that certain malevolent individuals like Pathoschild will leave no facts undistorted to achieve their ends.  I found what happened there deeply offensive. I did ask for help here. You asked then that I move the discussion back to the project, and out of respect for you I did.  That accomplished nothing. I suggested mediation, and you effectively refused.  Bureaucrats should have enough experience, stature and impartiality to be able to step into these situations and bring people to a common understanding instead of burying their heads in the sand and pretending that there is no problem.  A community like the one at Wikisource is obviously too small to have a formal arbitration process, so we should be able to expect better leadership from the bureaucrats.  So perhaps it is time for some kind of system outside the project that can look at these personality problems more objectively. Ec