It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Fred

I think you are completely right and it is a big problem in the Wiki-world that is not being addressed by anyone in a leading position.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 23:08 Mittwoch, 4.September 2013 Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared to people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long list of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having to fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the 'outsider' that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to temper his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round at a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making the WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a cabal.

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly - was anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know that they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here, http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to XP. For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is an upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending the entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not the first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed, labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on that page, but my entry was closed within minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I don't do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number of initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am happy to see that things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

-- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

To imagine that groups of people will not try and manoeuvre out persons that they don't like is very naive. That has not happened before in the history of mankind and the Wikis are no exception.

Today noone is accountable for what they do to other Wiki-contributors, they are not even identifiable since they hide behind nome de guerres. Stewards have no authority to protect users from abuses and the same goes for the Ombudsman. (see also Rui Correia's email)

So if the Wikis want to be a safe place for children and old folks alike, and that everybody shall be able to contribute on equal conditions, a more realistic organization to protect the users must be put in place.

Regards Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 1:16 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Fred

I think you are completely right and it is a big problem in the Wiki-world that is not being addressed by anyone in a leading position.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 23:08 Mittwoch, 4.September 2013 Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared to people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long list of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having to fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the 'outsider' that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to temper his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round at a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making the WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a cabal.

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly - was anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know that they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here, http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to XP. For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is an upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending the entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not the first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed, labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on that page, but my entry was closed within minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I don't do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number of initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am happy to see that things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

-- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

It is very laudable if you, Peter, tries and help newbies and others that are harassed by other users.

I however don't think it is enough in a worldwide organization that you have to rely on volunteers and that these will intervene.

As I see it, if you start such an organization you must also take on the responsibilities that follows. You can't just duck and pretend that you can hand over all problems to the users.

I still think that an international organization like the Wikis demands an instance to which mistreated and mobbed users can turn. An instance with the responsibility that normal rules in a society are upheld and with the authority to uphold them.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 10:50 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.

You mean it's not _solved_. Indeed.

At least one problem was mentioned in the thread which is that the (honest, knowledgeable) newbies have unproportionally smaller debating/lobbying power than aboriginals, and they are very easy to oppress. This is an ongoing problem for the last decade or so and no good solution seem to exist.

In theory there are (or could be) volunteers who could be called in cases of newbie oppression from the experienced troll^H^H^H^Heditors who would declare that they try to act as neutral as possible but they would possess more experience to handle obnoxious editors and other regual beings. Arbitration, mentoring, whatever we like to call it. Obviously it only worked if there's a free way to reject a request (if the volunteer believes the newbie has no merits, let's not call them outright trolls and vandals) and if it isn't an "official" cabal but a large catalog of helpful and experienced editors.

I have often done it (and still occasionally do on Commons since it's a pretty harsh environment for newbies) and it's doable if there's enough volunteers and people don't try to do it too often, I mean, one in a week or month or so.

The point is to have a group of random people who are not involved in the debate but could help to communicate with the members of the community. (Since they're uninvolved it's probably useless to call them biased, which is the easiest unargument I've seen in such debates.)

g

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English wikipedia?

There is not much, if any, of what is being discussed that I can recognize from my home wp

Anders

Fred Bauder skrev 2013-09-05 13:18:

That was the purpose of the original arbitration committee. Finding a mentor is kind of hard nowdays as there are so many users who might help but probably will not. On the other hand, many requests I have received and looked into are from people who are making trouble themselves; sometimes very serious trouble. Giving a second chance to someone who has been banned by the community after extended discussion seldom works out well. But that's not a newbie who has run into serious trouble just for making jokes about Windoze...

Fred

...

It is very laudable if you, Peter, tries and help newbies and others that are harassed by other users.

I however don't think it is enough in a worldwide organization that you have to rely on volunteers and that these will intervene.

As I see it, if you start such an organization you must also take on the responsibilities that follows. You can't just duck and pretend that you can hand over all problems to the users.

I still think that an international organization like the Wikis demands an instance to which mistreated and mobbed users can turn. An instance with the responsibility that normal rules in a society are upheld and with the authority to uphold them.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 10:50 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

...

No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.

You mean it's not _solved_. Indeed.

At least one problem was mentioned in the thread which is that the (honest, knowledgeable) newbies have unproportionally smaller debating/lobbying power than aboriginals, and they are very easy to oppress. This is an ongoing problem for the last decade or so and no good solution seem to exist.

In theory there are (or could be) volunteers who could be called in cases of newbie oppression from the experienced troll^H^H^H^Heditors who would declare that they try to act as neutral as possible but they would possess more experience to handle obnoxious editors and other regual beings. Arbitration, mentoring, whatever we like to call it. Obviously it only worked if there's a free way to reject a request (if the volunteer believes the newbie has no merits, let's not call them outright trolls and vandals) and if it isn't an "official" cabal but a large catalog of helpful and experienced editors.

I have often done it (and still occasionally do on Commons since it's a pretty harsh environment for newbies) and it's doable if there's enough volunteers and people don't try to do it too often, I mean, one in a week or month or so.

The point is to have a group of random people who are not involved in the debate but could help to communicate with the members of the community. (Since they're uninvolved it's probably useless to call them biased, which is the easiest unargument I've seen in such debates.)

g

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

This is certainly not a question only for the English Wikipedia. I somewhat doubt that it even foremost has to do with the English Wikipedia. I have seen this problem primarily in smaller Wikis dominated by few people.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 13:28 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

At wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org ? Perhaps, but hard to start over from the beginning.

Fred

Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English wikipedia?

There is not much, if any,  of what is being discussed that I can recognize from my home wp

Anders

Fred Bauder skrev 2013-09-05 13:18:

...

That was the purpose of the original arbitration committee. Finding a mentor is kind of hard nowdays as there are so many users who might help but probably will not. On the other hand, many requests I have received and looked into are from people who are making trouble themselves; sometimes very serious trouble. Giving a second chance to someone who has been banned by the community after extended discussion seldom works out well. But that's not a newbie who has run into serious trouble just for making jokes about Windoze...

Fred

...

It is very laudable if you, Peter, tries and help newbies and others that are harassed by other users.

I however don't think it is enough in a worldwide organization that you have to rely on volunteers and that these will intervene.

As I see it, if you start such an organization you must also take on the responsibilities that follows. You can't just duck and pretend that you can hand over all problems to the users.

I still think that an international organization like the Wikis demands an instance to which mistreated and mobbed users can turn. An instance with the responsibility that normal rules in a society are upheld and with the authority to uphold them.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 10:50 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

...

No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.

You mean it's not _solved_. Indeed.

At least one problem was mentioned in the thread which is that the (honest, knowledgeable) newbies have unproportionally smaller debating/lobbying power than aboriginals, and they are very easy to oppress. This is an ongoing problem for the last decade or so and no good solution seem to exist.

In theory there are (or could be) volunteers who could be called in cases of newbie oppression from the experienced troll^H^H^H^Heditors who would declare that they try to act as neutral as possible but they would possess more experience to handle obnoxious editors and other regual beings. Arbitration, mentoring, whatever we like to call it. Obviously it only worked if there's a free way to reject a request (if the volunteer believes the newbie has no merits, let's not call them outright trolls and vandals) and if it isn't an "official" cabal but a large catalog of helpful and experienced editors.

I have often done it (and still occasionally do on Commons since it's a pretty harsh environment for newbies) and it's doable if there's enough volunteers and people don't try to do it too often, I mean, one in a week or month or so.

The point is to have a group of random people who are not involved in the debate but could help to communicate with the members of the community. (Since they're uninvolved it's probably useless to call them biased, which is the easiest unargument I've seen in such debates.)

g

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Sorry, but I'm not agree with your note, Anders.

My home WP is not en: (it's uk: in fact) but everything being discussed is very (100%) applicable for our community.

Lucky you are in se:WP that you have no similar issues/problems but perhaps you've collected some magical know-how how to avoid said troubles. If so would you please share that knowledge & experience?

Sincerely, Pavlo

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.sewrote:

Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English wikipedia?

There is not much, if any, of what is being discussed that I can recognize from my home wp

Anders

That's Sweden all right, it's like a small town. Thousands of administrators from scores of countries is another matter. Even requests for administration is very difficult as, unless you do big time research, or spend your life monitoring others edits and activity, you just don't know much. Voting has the same downside; because of the volume you just don't have enough information to register an informed opinion, at least about individuals. The people you encounter in daily activities while editing is only a tiny sliver.

Fred

It is no magic *yearly reelection of administrators/sysops has meant no bullying types are sysops any more *we are a small community with just a few hundred active. And we have decided to treat everyone (who are serious) as valuable individuals, and go a very long way to make all feeling welcome, stop behaving as overdog/underdog and also to try special solutions for troublesome users that enable them to not being blocked but having restrictions on certain type of activities. Both people who have temporary maniac periods and with autism symptoms can be useful contributers if handled right by the communities.

But these experiences can not be extended to everywhere. en:wp have 20 times the number of contributers then sv:wp and of course this means need of different ways of handling problems. I do not pretend to have anything to teach en:wp, but as said I find nothing useful for sv:wp hearing of the challenges on en:wp

Anders

Pavlo Shevelo skrev 2013-09-05 13:36:

...

Sorry, but I'm not agree with your note, Anders.

My home WP is not en: (it's uk: in fact) but everything being discussed is very (100%) applicable for our community.

Lucky you are in se:WP that you have no similar issues/problems but perhaps you've collected some magical know-how how to avoid said troubles. If so would you please share that knowledge & experience?

Sincerely, Pavlo

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.sewrote:

...

Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English wikipedia?

There is not much, if any, of what is being discussed that I can recognize from my home wp

Anders

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I doubt that scale is only thing which matters.

Sweden has a set of elites who all know each other and have developed consensus, and, perhaps, learned how to do that well.

What I know is that Ukraine has a big split between Russians and Ukrainians. But do nationalistic Russians even bother with the Ukrainian Wikipedia? Do you have a lot of Canadian contributors?

In the United States distance defeats us. A meet up in New York City is almost as far way as Hong Kong.

Fred

As to me both enWP and ukWP suffers from lack of community (extremely important word in Anders' comment) as that despite the fact that fist is much larger 'town' (even 'city') than svWP, and second is small 'village'.

I mean community solid enough to 'behave' like one organization (Lars Gardenius pointed to importance of it earlier) .

...and yes, comment *> I'm sure the

...

community of editors is rather small, but they must come from very diverse backgrounds.*

(from later note) is 100% correct about Ukraine. ...but isn't it similar to enWP, where people come from different countries, so "*diverse backgrounds*" as well? ...which this way or another prevent creation of solid community (whatever is the size of it)

Sincerely, Pavlo

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

...

That's Sweden all right, it's like a small town. Thousands of administrators from scores of countries is another matter. Even requests for administration is very difficult as, unless you do big time research, or spend your life monitoring others edits and activity, you just don't know much. Voting has the same downside; because of the volume you just don't have enough information to register an informed opinion, at least about individuals. The people you encounter in daily activities while editing is only a tiny sliver.

Fred

...

It is no magic *yearly reelection of administrators/sysops has meant no bullying

types

...

are sysops any more *we are a small community with just a few hundred active. And we have decided to treat everyone (who are serious) as valuable individuals, and go a very long way to make all feeling welcome, stop behaving as overdog/underdog and also to try special solutions for troublesome

users

...

that enable them to not being blocked but having restrictions on

certain

...

type of activities. Both people who have temporary maniac periods and with autism symptoms can be useful contributers if handled right by

the

...

communities.

But these experiences can not be extended to everywhere. en:wp have

20

...

times the number of contributers then sv:wp and of course this means need of different ways of handling problems. I do not pretend to have anything to teach en:wp, but as said I find nothing useful for sv:wp hearing of the challenges on en:wp

Anders

Pavlo Shevelo skrev 2013-09-05 13:36:

...

Sorry, but I'm not agree with your note, Anders.

My home WP is not en: (it's uk: in fact) but everything being

discussed

...

...

is very (100%) applicable for our community.

Lucky you are in se:WP that you have no similar issues/problems but perhaps you've collected some magical know-how how to avoid said troubles.

If

...

...

so would you please share that knowledge & experience?

Sincerely, Pavlo

Thank you very much for your input, Anders, it is much appreciated! You provided some important details and spotlight to see them well.

...but still please be patient to the discussion which might seem boring to svWP people (and ukWP people are quite jealous and dreaming about having same feelings when such topics will be discussed in future) :)

Pavlo

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.sewrote:

It is no magic *yearly reelection of administrators/sysops has meant no bullying types are sysops any more *we are a small community with just a few hundred active. And we have decided to treat everyone (who are serious) as valuable individuals, and go a very long way to make all feeling welcome, stop behaving as overdog/underdog and also to try special solutions for troublesome users that enable them to not being blocked but having restrictions on certain type of activities. Both people who have temporary maniac periods and with autism symptoms can be useful contributers if handled right by the communities.

But these experiences can not be extended to everywhere. en:wp have 20 times the number of contributers then sv:wp and of course this means need of different ways of handling problems. I do not pretend to have anything to teach en:wp, but as said I find nothing useful for sv:wp hearing of the challenges on en:wp

Anders

Pavlo Shevelo skrev 2013-09-05 13:36:

...

Sorry, but I'm not agree with your note, Anders.

My home WP is not en: (it's uk: in fact) but everything being discussed is very (100%) applicable for our community.

Lucky you are in se:WP that you have no similar issues/problems but perhaps you've collected some magical know-how how to avoid said troubles. If so would you please share that knowledge & experience?

Sincerely, Pavlo

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se**wrote:

Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English wikipedia?

...

There is not much, if any, of what is being discussed that I can recognize from my home wp

Anders

______________________________**_________________

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=**unsubscribe>

______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=**unsubscribe>

Perhaps you should think again Anders. It certainly also has to do with the Swedish wikis.

You just repeated what you wrote earlier.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se An: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 13:23 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Should not this discussion be held on he maillist for English wikipedia?

There is not much, if any,  of what is being discussed that I can recognize from my home wp

Anders

Fred Bauder skrev 2013-09-05 13:18:

That was the purpose of the original arbitration committee. Finding a mentor is kind of hard nowdays as there are so many users who might help but probably will not. On the other hand, many requests I have received and looked into are from people who are making trouble themselves; sometimes very serious trouble. Giving a second chance to someone who has been banned by the community after extended discussion seldom works out well. But that's not a newbie who has run into serious trouble just for making jokes about Windoze...

Fred

...

It is very laudable if you, Peter, tries and help newbies and others that are harassed by other users.

I however don't think it is enough in a worldwide organization that you have to rely on volunteers and that these will intervene.

As I see it, if you start such an organization you must also take on the responsibilities that follows. You can't just duck and pretend that you can hand over all problems to the users.

I still think that an international organization like the Wikis demands an instance to which mistreated and mobbed users can turn. An instance with the responsibility that normal rules in a society are upheld and with the authority to uphold them.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 10:50 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

...

No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.

You mean it's not _solved_. Indeed.

At least one problem was mentioned in the thread which is that the (honest, knowledgeable) newbies have unproportionally smaller debating/lobbying power than aboriginals, and they are very easy to oppress. This is an ongoing problem for the last decade or so and no good solution seem to exist.

In theory there are (or could be) volunteers who could be called in cases of newbie oppression from the experienced troll^H^H^H^Heditors who would declare that they try to act as neutral as possible but they would possess more experience to handle obnoxious editors and other regual beings. Arbitration, mentoring, whatever we like to call it. Obviously it only worked if there's a free way to reject a request (if the volunteer believes the newbie has no merits, let's not call them outright trolls and vandals) and if it isn't an "official" cabal but a large catalog of helpful and experienced editors.

I have often done it (and still occasionally do on Commons since it's a pretty harsh environment for newbies) and it's doable if there's enough volunteers and people don't try to do it too often, I mean, one in a week or month or so.

The point is to have a group of random people who are not involved in the debate but could help to communicate with the members of the community. (Since they're uninvolved it's probably useless to call them biased, which is the easiest unargument I've seen in such debates.)

g

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Sorry, but I have seen several instances where it certainly doesn't work. Not in a way you would expect in a normal society anyhow.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 14:22 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I wouldn't say dispute resolution has never worked, nor does it not work now. It could use improvement, but the same could be said about everything (and like most things, shortages of volunteers make things harder)

Steve Zhang Sent from my iPad

On 05/09/2013, at 6:18 PM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

To imagine that groups of people will not try and manoeuvre out persons that they don't like is very naive. That has not happened before in the history of mankind and the Wikis are no exception.

Today noone is accountable for what they do to other Wiki-contributors, they are not even identifiable since they hide behind nome de guerres. Stewards have no authority to protect users from abuses and the same goes for the Ombudsman. (see also Rui Correia's email)

So if the Wikis want to be a safe place for children and old folks alike, and that everybody shall be able to contribute on equal conditions, a more realistic organization to protect the users must be put in place.

Regards Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 1:16 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Fred

...

I think you are completely right and it is a big problem in the Wiki-world that is not being addressed by anyone in a leading position.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 23:08 Mittwoch, 4.September 2013 Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared to people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long list of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having to fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the 'outsider' that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to temper his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round at a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making the WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a cabal.

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly - was anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know that they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here, http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to XP. For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is an upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending the entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not the first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed, labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on that page, but my entry was closed within minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I don't do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number of initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am happy to see that things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

-- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

As said I think it is an obvious structural problem of the Wiki organization. I don't think the intention of this thread was to solve a single issue but to point out a general problem.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 15:09 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

For a serious discussion to happen you will need to disclose some examples. The next step is to move beyond anecdote to see if there is a general problem.

The particular incident Rui brought up has been pretty much explained, but the question remains about have a new or casual editor who commits a faux pas can simply be reminded not to rather than being vilified and being turned away completely. Everyone does dumb stuff, especially at first. The question is whether they learn anything from it.

Fred

Sorry, but I have seen several instances where it certainly doesn't work. Not in a way you would expect in a normal society anyhow.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 14:22 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I wouldn't say dispute resolution has never worked, nor does it not work now. It could use improvement, but the same could be said about everything (and like most things, shortages of volunteers make things harder)

Steve Zhang Sent from my iPad

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I am sorry Anders but I believe you are wrong.

Do you also want to abolish the Ombudsmen that there are quite a few in Sweden?

These are there to give people a place to turn to when they for instance are mistreated by the authorities.

In the companies and schools where I have been working there have also been such instances where you can turn when an employee/schoolchild has been mobbed.

Why would Wiki manage without such an instance? I think you paint a much too rosy picture of the Swedish Wikis, e.g. Swedish Wiktionary.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se An: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 16:19 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Lars Gardenius skrev 2013-09-05 15:53:

As said I think it is an obvious structural problem of the Wiki organization.

I  disagree to that statement.

While Fred is about right likening sv:wp to a medium sized town, being a bit idyllic, even if persons have feelings here to a get in a conflict too (it is the way we, the community,  resolve this that differs)

My message is:Even if en:wp with its size need strong structures around administration let us not in general pursue the road of more structures.

Let us instead learn to be more human in our intracommunicaition on the wikis (while still being determined to throw out Pov pusher, selfrpomos etc)

Anders

I don't think the intention of this thread was to solve a single issue but to point out a general problem.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 15:09 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

For a serious discussion to happen you will need to disclose some examples. The next step is to move beyond anecdote to see if there is a general problem.

The particular incident Rui brought up has been pretty much explained, but the question remains about have a new or casual editor who commits a faux pas can simply be reminded not to rather than being vilified and being turned away completely. Everyone does dumb stuff, especially at first. The question is whether they learn anything from it.

Fred

...

Sorry, but I have seen several instances where it certainly doesn't work. Not in a way you would expect in a normal society anyhow.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 14:22 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I wouldn't say dispute resolution has never worked, nor does it not work now. It could use improvement, but the same could be said about everything (and like most things, shortages of volunteers make things harder)

Steve Zhang Sent from my iPad

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I've worked extensively with dispute resolution on English Wikipedia (I have conducted surveys and so on). If you have specific trends I would welcome seeing them (isolated cases where one side is unhappy with the result is not necessarily a sign the process is flawed, so I am more interested in overall trends but would welcome your opinion.)

Steve Zhang Sent from my iPad

On 05/09/2013, at 10:59 PM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

Sorry, but I have seen several instances where it certainly doesn't work. Not in a way you would expect in a normal society anyhow.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 14:22 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I wouldn't say dispute resolution has never worked, nor does it not work now. It could use improvement, but the same could be said about everything (and like most things, shortages of volunteers make things harder)

Steve Zhang Sent from my iPad

On 05/09/2013, at 6:18 PM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

...

No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

To imagine that groups of people will not try and manoeuvre out persons that they don't like is very naive. That has not happened before in the history of mankind and the Wikis are no exception.

Today noone is accountable for what they do to other Wiki-contributors, they are not even identifiable since they hide behind nome de guerres. Stewards have no authority to protect users from abuses and the same goes for the Ombudsman. (see also Rui Correia's email)

So if the Wikis want to be a safe place for children and old folks alike, and that everybody shall be able to contribute on equal conditions, a more realistic organization to protect the users must be put in place.

Regards Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 1:16 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Fred

...

I think you are completely right and it is a big problem in the Wiki-world that is not being addressed by anyone in a leading position.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 23:08 Mittwoch, 4.September 2013 Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared to people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long list of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having to fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the 'outsider' that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to temper his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round at a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making the WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a cabal.

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly - was anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know that they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here, http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to XP. For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is an upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending the entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not the first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed, labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on that page, but my entry was closed within minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I don't do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number of initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am happy to see that things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

-- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Lars,

Please put your cards on the table. What are your suggested changes?

Fred

I am also more interested in processes than discussing special cases. I think that was also the meaning of Rui Correia's letter starting this thread.

To me there is obvious that there are flaws in the construction of the Wiki-organization when it comes to mistreatment and mobbing of users. I have discussed this question both with the stewards and the ombudsman, both tell me that they can't intervene in a Wiki, even if they themselves object to the behaviour of certain members of that Wiki.

That means that there is no instance outside of the specific Wiki to which a harassed and mobbed user can turn. That is I think an structural error that I believe you don't usually find in any other big organization.

I have also studied these pages where "dispute resolution" is handled. They do not impress me much. I agree with Rui Correia, it is the same people quarreling about the same things and the result is often nil.

So I still think there need to be structural change to handle this type of problems.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de CC: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net Gesendet: 15:15 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I've worked extensively with dispute resolution on English Wikipedia (I have conducted surveys and so on). If you have specific trends I would welcome seeing them (isolated cases where one side is unhappy with the result is not necessarily a sign the process is flawed, so I am more interested in overall trends but would welcome your opinion.)

Steve ZhangSent from my iPad

On 05/09/2013, at 10:59 PM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

Sorry, but I have seen several instances where it certainly doesn't work. Not in a way you would expect in a normal society anyhow.

...

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 14:22 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I wouldn't say dispute resolution has never worked, nor does it not work now. It could use improvement, but the same could be said about everything (and like most things, shortages of volunteers make things harder)

Steve Zhang Sent from my iPad

On 05/09/2013, at 6:18 PM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

...

No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

To imagine that groups of people will not try and manoeuvre out persons that they don't like is very naive. That has not happened before in the history of mankind and the

Wikis are no exception.

...

...

Today noone is accountable for what they do to other Wiki-contributors, they are not even identifiable since they hide behind nome de guerres. Stewards have no authority to protect users from abuses and the same goes for the Ombudsman. (see also Rui Correia's email)

So if the Wikis want to be a safe place for children and old folks alike, and that everybody shall be able to contribute on equal conditions, a more realistic organization to protect the users must be put in place.

Regards Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 1:16 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Fred

...

I think you are completely right and it is a big problem in the Wiki-world that is not being addressed by anyone in a leading position.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 23:08 Mittwoch, 4.September 2013 Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared to people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long list of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having to

fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

...

...

...

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the 'outsider' that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to temper his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round at a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making the WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a

cabal.

...

...

...

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly

was anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know that they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here, http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to XP. For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is an upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending the entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not the first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed,

labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on

...

...

...

that page, but my entry was closed within minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I don't do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number of initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am

happy to see

...

...

...

that things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

-- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________

---

...

...

...

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________

Wikimedia-l mailing list

...

...

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

That is just a re-invention of the Arbitration Committee. People from an external source nearly always have a fatal flaw; they don't understand how Wikipedia works. More informed people could man the arbitration committee, but that is a matter of documenting what the existing committee does and its effect and educating administrators, potential candidates and the existing committee members on the practical effect of their decisions.

Fred

Well that is pretty easy: that Wiki-org will follow the example put up by many countries, companies and schools.

Create an independent instance (i.e. in this case independent of the Wikis) that you can turn to when you are offended, insulted, mobbed, harassed or in any way mistreated by people in the Wikis.

Since so many seems to misunderstand this question, it is not meant to handle questions about content or policies in the separate Wikis, but only about the normal human behaviour that we have agreed on shall be present in a society (today not including the Wikis).

It is also important that this independent instance shall be responsible for that the behaviour in the Wikis are within the boundaries of the outside society, and therefore also has the right to intervene in a Wiki, when members of that Wiki cross that boundary.

Today there is an increasing problem with mobbing on the Internet. I don't want the Wikis to be an enclave where this is still allowed.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 16:04 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Lars,

Please put your cards on the table. What are your suggested changes?

Fred

...

I am also more interested in processes than discussing special cases. I think that was also the meaning of Rui Correia's letter starting this thread.

To me there is obvious that there are flaws in the construction of the Wiki-organization when it comes to mistreatment and mobbing of users. I have discussed this question both with the stewards and the ombudsman, both tell me that they can't intervene in a Wiki, even if they themselves object to the behaviour of certain members of that Wiki.

That means that there is no instance outside of the specific Wiki to which a harassed and mobbed user can turn. That is I think an structural error that I believe you don't usually find in any other big organization.

I have also studied these pages where "dispute resolution" is handled. They do not impress me much. I agree with Rui Correia, it is the same people quarreling about the same things and the result is often nil.

So I still think there need to be structural change to handle this type of problems.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de CC: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net Gesendet: 15:15 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I've worked extensively with dispute resolution on English Wikipedia (I have conducted surveys and so on). If you have specific trends I would welcome seeing them (isolated cases where one side is unhappy with the result is not necessarily a sign the process is flawed, so I am more interested in overall trends but would welcome your opinion.)

Steve ZhangSent from my iPad

On 05/09/2013, at 10:59 PM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

Sorry, but I have seen several instances where it certainly doesn't work. Not in a way you would expect in a normal society anyhow.

...

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 14:22 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I wouldn't say dispute resolution has never worked, nor does it not work now. It could use improvement, but the same could be said about everything (and like most things, shortages of volunteers make things harder)

Steve Zhang Sent from my iPad

On 05/09/2013, at 6:18 PM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

...

No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

To imagine that groups of people will not try and manoeuvre out persons that they don't like is very naive. That has not happened before in the history of mankind and the

Wikis are no exception.

...

...

Today noone is accountable for what they do to other Wiki-contributors, they are not even identifiable since they hide behind nome de guerres. Stewards have no authority to protect users from abuses and the same goes for the Ombudsman. (see also Rui Correia's email)

So if the Wikis want to be a safe place for children and old folks alike, and that everybody shall be able to contribute on equal conditions, a more realistic organization to protect the users must be put in place.

Regards Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 1:16 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Fred

...

I think you are completely right and it is a big problem in the Wiki-world that is not being addressed by anyone in a leading position.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 23:08 Mittwoch, 4.September 2013 Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared to people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long list of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having to

fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

...

...

...

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the 'outsider' that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to temper his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round at a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making the WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a

cabal.

...

...

...

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly

was anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know that they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here, http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to XP. For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is an upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending the entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not the first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed,

labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on

...

...

...

that page, but my entry was closed within minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I don't do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number of initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am

happy to see

...

...

...

that things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

-- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________

_______________________________________________

...

...

...

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________

Wikimedia-l mailing list

...

...

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Who is both "independent", knowledgeable, and not involved in a wiki?

All you have to do is read a newspaper or magazine article about Wikipedia to realize how hopelessly outsiders get everything wrong.

Fred

Well, it doesn't matter to me if it is re-invention or not. To me the important thing is to put such an instance in action. And I know for a fact that it doesn't function today since I discussed this question with numerous people in the Wiki-org (like the stewards, the ombudsman etc.)

That you are independent doesn't mean that you are not accustomed to how the Wikis work, I would guess that it actually is a prerequisite that you are. It just means that you take a step aside and are no longer actively involved in any Wiki and that you understand your position as an independent arbitrator. This process is handled without difficulties by other organizations.

I am involved in work to counteract mobbing on the Internet in general and there are the Wikis today absolutely a part of the problem.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 19:14 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

That is just a re-invention of the Arbitration Committee. People from an external source nearly always have a fatal flaw; they don't understand how Wikipedia works. More informed people could man the arbitration committee, but that is a matter of documenting what the existing committee does and its effect and educating administrators, potential candidates and the existing committee members on the practical effect of their decisions.

Fred

...

Well that is pretty easy: that Wiki-org will follow the example put up by many countries, companies and schools.

Create an independent instance (i.e. in this case independent of the Wikis) that you can turn to when you are offended, insulted, mobbed, harassed or in any way mistreated by people in the Wikis.

Since so many seems to misunderstand this question, it is not meant to handle questions about content or policies in the separate Wikis, but only about the normal human behaviour that we have agreed on shall be present in a society (today not including the Wikis).

It is also important that this independent instance shall be responsible for that the behaviour in the Wikis are within the boundaries of the outside society, and therefore also has the right to intervene in a Wiki, when members of that Wiki cross that boundary.

Today there is an increasing problem with mobbing on the Internet. I don't want the Wikis to be an enclave where this is still allowed.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 16:04 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Lars,

Please put your cards on the table. What are your suggested changes?

Fred

...

I am also more interested in processes than discussing special cases. I think that was also the meaning of Rui Correia's letter starting this thread.

To me there is obvious that there are flaws in the construction of the Wiki-organization when it comes to mistreatment and mobbing of users. I have discussed this question both with the stewards and the ombudsman, both tell me that they can't intervene in a Wiki, even if they themselves object to the behaviour of certain members of that Wiki.

That means that there is no instance outside of the specific Wiki to which a harassed and mobbed user can turn. That is I think an structural error that I believe you don't usually find in any other big organization.

I have also studied these pages where "dispute resolution" is handled. They do not impress me much. I agree with Rui Correia, it is the same people quarreling about the same things and the result is often nil.

So I still think there need to be structural change to handle this type of problems.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de CC: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net Gesendet: 15:15 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I've worked extensively with dispute resolution on English Wikipedia (I have conducted surveys and so on). If you have specific trends I would welcome seeing them (isolated cases where one side is unhappy with the result is not necessarily a sign the process is flawed, so I am more interested in overall trends but would welcome your opinion.)

Steve ZhangSent from my iPad

On 05/09/2013, at 10:59 PM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

Sorry, but I have seen several instances where it certainly doesn't work. Not in a way you would expect in a normal society anyhow.

...

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 14:22 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I wouldn't say dispute resolution has never worked, nor does it not work now. It could use improvement, but the same could be said about everything (and like most things, shortages of volunteers make things harder)

Steve Zhang Sent from my iPad

On 05/09/2013, at 6:18 PM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

...

No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

To imagine that groups of people will not try and manoeuvre out persons that they don't like is very naive. That has not happened before in the history of mankind and the

Wikis are no exception.

...

...

Today noone is accountable for what they do to other Wiki-contributors, they are not even identifiable since they hide behind nome de guerres. Stewards have no authority to protect users from abuses and the same goes for the Ombudsman. (see also Rui Correia's email)

So if the Wikis want to be a safe place for children and old folks alike, and that everybody shall be able to contribute on equal conditions, a more realistic organization to protect the users must be put in place.

Regards Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 1:16 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Fred

...

I think you are completely right and it is a big problem in the Wiki-world that is not being addressed by anyone in a leading position.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 23:08 Mittwoch, 4.September 2013 Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared to people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long list of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having to

fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

...

...

...

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the 'outsider' that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to temper his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round at a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making the WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a

cabal.

...

...

...

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly

was anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know that they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here, http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to XP. For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is an upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending the entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not the first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed,

labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on

...

...

...

that page, but my entry was closed within minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I don't do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number of initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am

happy to see

...

...

...

that things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

-- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________

_______________________________________________

...

...

...

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________

Wikimedia-l mailing list

...

...

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

As said that are easily solved in the society as a whole. So it is probably also possible in Wikis.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 20:30 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Who is both "independent", knowledgeable, and not involved in a wiki?

All you have to do is read a newspaper or magazine article about Wikipedia to realize how hopelessly outsiders get everything wrong.

Fred

Well, it doesn't matter to me if it is re-invention or not. To me the important thing is to put such an instance in action. And I know for a fact that it doesn't function today since I discussed this question with numerous people in the Wiki-org (like the stewards, the ombudsman etc.)

That you are independent doesn't mean that you are not accustomed to how the Wikis work, I would guess that it actually is a prerequisite that you are. It just means that you take a step aside and are no longer actively involved in any Wiki and that you understand your position as an independent arbitrator. This process is handled without difficulties by other organizations.

I am involved in work to counteract mobbing on the Internet in general and there are the Wikis today absolutely a part of the problem.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 19:14 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

That is just a re-invention of the Arbitration Committee. People from an external source nearly always have a fatal flaw; they don't understand how Wikipedia works. More informed people could man the arbitration committee, but that is a matter of documenting what the existing committee does and its effect and educating administrators, potential candidates and the existing committee members on the practical effect of their decisions.

Fred

...

Well that is pretty easy: that Wiki-org will follow the example put up by many countries, companies and schools.

Create an independent instance (i.e. in this case independent of the Wikis) that you can turn to when you are offended, insulted, mobbed, harassed or in any way mistreated by people in the Wikis.

Since so many seems to misunderstand this question, it is not meant to handle questions about content or policies in the separate Wikis, but only about the normal human behaviour that we have agreed on shall be present in a society (today not including the Wikis).

It is also important that this independent instance shall be responsible for that the behaviour in the Wikis are within the boundaries of the outside society, and therefore also has the right to intervene in a Wiki, when members of that Wiki cross that boundary.

Today there is an increasing problem with mobbing on the Internet. I don't want the Wikis to be an enclave where this is still allowed.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 16:04 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Lars,

Please put your cards on the table. What are your suggested changes?

Fred

...

I am also more interested in processes than discussing special cases. I think that was also the meaning of Rui Correia's letter starting this thread.

To me there is obvious that there are flaws in the construction of the Wiki-organization when it comes to mistreatment and mobbing of users. I have discussed this question both with the stewards and the ombudsman, both tell me that they can't intervene in a Wiki, even if they themselves object to the behaviour of certain members of that Wiki.

That means that there is no instance outside of the specific Wiki to which a harassed and mobbed user can turn. That is I think an structural error that I believe you don't usually find in any other big organization.

I have also studied these pages where "dispute resolution" is handled. They do not impress me much. I agree with Rui Correia, it is the same people quarreling about the same things and the result is often nil.

So I still think there need to be structural change to handle this type of problems.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de CC: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net Gesendet: 15:15 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I've worked extensively with dispute resolution on English Wikipedia (I have conducted surveys and so on). If you have specific trends I would welcome seeing them (isolated cases where one side is unhappy with the result is not necessarily a sign the process is flawed, so I am more interested in overall trends but would welcome your opinion.)

Steve ZhangSent from my iPad

On 05/09/2013, at 10:59 PM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

Sorry, but I have seen several instances where it certainly doesn't work. Not in a way you would expect in a normal society anyhow.

...

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: "cro0016@gmail.com" cro0016@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 14:22 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I wouldn't say dispute resolution has never worked, nor does it not work now. It could use improvement, but the same could be said about everything (and like most things, shortages of volunteers make things harder)

Steve Zhang Sent from my iPad

On 05/09/2013, at 6:18 PM, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

...

No I don't think it is being addressed. Not in a serious way.

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

To imagine that groups of people will not try and manoeuvre out persons that they don't like is very naive. That has not happened before in the history of mankind and the

Wikis are no exception.

...

...

Today noone is accountable for what they do to other Wiki-contributors, they are not even identifiable since they hide behind nome de guerres. Stewards have no authority to protect users from abuses and the same goes for the Ombudsman. (see also Rui Correia's email)

So if the Wikis want to be a safe place for children and old folks alike, and that everybody shall be able to contribute on equal conditions, a more realistic organization to protect the users must be put in place.

Regards Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 1:16 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Fred

...

I think you are completely right and it is a big problem in the Wiki-world that is not being addressed by anyone in a leading position.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 23:08 Mittwoch, 4.September 2013 Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared to people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long list of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having to

fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

...

...

...

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the 'outsider' that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to temper his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round at a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making the WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a

cabal.

...

...

...

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly

was anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know that they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here, http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to XP. For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is an upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending the entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not the first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed,

labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on

...

...

...

that page, but my entry was closed within minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I don't do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number of initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am

happy to see

...

...

...

that things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

-- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________

_______________________________________________

...

...

...

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________

Wikimedia-l mailing list

...

...

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I don't believe you are rightly informed there. You are of course right that there are many arenas where mobbing is frequent, like blogs and Facebook etc.

But to believe that the Wikis are a rosy exception in that context is to be very naive or very ill informed.

I don't exactly understand what you mean by "Wikipedia's extreme size". First of all I don't only mean Wikipedia but all Wikis handled by Wikimedia. In this context Wikis can be very small, dominated and controlled by a very small number of people, or it can be huge like some of the big Wikipedias, which I guess are much harder to control by a small group.

I have primarily seen this problem in various small Wikis, but I suppose that it exist to a higher or smaller degree across the whole spectrum.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: geni geniice@gmail.com An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 20:37 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

On 5 September 2013 18:50, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

I am involved in work to counteract mobbing on the Internet in general and there are the Wikis today absolutely a part of the problem.

Not remotely. Wikipedia's extreme size and heterogeneous nature make it an extremely poor place for ah "mobs" to form and sustain themselves. Places the reddit, free republic, DU and facebook are fair better environments for mobs and if you were actualy working on the counteract mobbing on the Internet you would know this.

I think you basically misunderstand the question. What I wrote has nothing to do with "getting your will through" or "getting your opinion heard".

But if your child is mobbed at a Wiki when he/she tries to contribute, or your grandmother is being abused when she contributes to a Wiki, you want somewhere to turn. As said there is no such instance in the Wikis, there is noone responsible how people are treated and mistreated in the Wikis.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org An: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 17:15 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

Where "doesn't work" is mostly defined as "didn't give the result I demanded".

I've been part of that dispute resolution process for many years, and came out of it with the (admittedly cynical) lesson that the vast majority of vocal critics of it have become so as a result of "losing" to it for having been in the wrong in the first place.

When someone leaves in a tiff because they have been prevented from getting their way against consensus, then the system is arguably doing exactly what it's been designed for.

Of /course/ nobody ends up in a conflict on the projects without being convinced that they are in the right; and if they end up on the losing side, they will clearly feel that they were wronged.  We play up the concept of discussion leading to consensus but -- let's not kid ourselves -- we are all humans and thus subject to ego, stubbornness, and personality conflicts.

There *are* no vast, sweeping injustices.  No system is perfect and, occasionally, errors *are* made; but the leap from "the system didn't let me get my way" to "the system is broken/dying" is all to easy to make, and is an unavoidable result of humans interacting.

This certainly could be improved.  More education of users upfront might prevent the confrontations in the first place; less reliance on established cliques would reduce groupthink and exaggerated conservatism.  More robots and fewer humans would reduce the effects of human nature...

-- Marc

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Sorry but I don't what/who OP is.

And you still misunderstand. This is not a question about consensus over some article, it is about normal human behaviour, and that it sometimes is not there. If you haven't seen that happening I don't know where you have been looking. I think you paint an idealistic and rosy picture of the life in the Wikis that many users don't recognize.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org An: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 18:05 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

On 09/05/2013 11:49 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:

But if your child is mobbed at a Wiki when he/she tries to contribute, or your grandmother is being abused when she contributes to a Wiki, you want somewhere to turn. As said there is no such instance in the Wikis, there is noone responsible how people are treated and mistreated in the Wikis.

You start from the presumption that those things usually or often happen for reasons other than trying to push something through against consensus.  I have rarely seen that happening (and no, the OP is not an example -- if anything he's an excellent counterexample).

Mind you, there are often cases where the newbie is going against consensus but doesn't know it.  This is a case for user education.

We /do/ have a problem with the way much of the community handles new editors, but the existing mechanism in place /do/ work for the most part (at least, for the more egregious examples).  The rest is a cultural problem that no enforcement body could fix; you don't make people nice by beating them up.

-- Marc

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Yes, that is pretty much the situation. The howls of outraged anguish from those who were not able to dictate (really bad) content or practices form the core of our organized opposition. That does not mean systemic deficiencies don't exist; just that we must look and think in a noisy environment.

Fred

On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:

...

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

Where "doesn't work" is mostly defined as "didn't give the result I demanded".

I've been part of that dispute resolution process for many years, and came out of it with the (admittedly cynical) lesson that the vast majority of vocal critics of it have become so as a result of "losing" to it for having been in the wrong in the first place.

When someone leaves in a tiff because they have been prevented from getting their way against consensus, then the system is arguably doing exactly what it's been designed for.

Of /course/ nobody ends up in a conflict on the projects without being convinced that they are in the right; and if they end up on the losing side, they will clearly feel that they were wronged. We play up the concept of discussion leading to consensus but -- let's not kid ourselves -- we are all humans and thus subject to ego, stubbornness, and personality conflicts.

There *are* no vast, sweeping injustices. No system is perfect and, occasionally, errors *are* made; but the leap from "the system didn't let me get my way" to "the system is broken/dying" is all to easy to make, and is an unavoidable result of humans interacting.

This certainly could be improved. More education of users upfront might prevent the confrontations in the first place; less reliance on established cliques would reduce groupthink and exaggerated conservatism. More robots and fewer humans would reduce the effects of human nature...

-- Marc

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

And your solution is an ombudsman, or what? I know there is a solution that you have in mind. In fact, it looks very much like a solution in search of a problem. Out with it!

Fred

The problem is that "howls of outraged anguish" seems to come from the admins not from the newbies.

But that was not the question here. The question was that the Wikis lack an instance that people can turn to when they are harassed and mobbed in the wikis, be that newbies or admins, children or old folks, women or men.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 18:03 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Yes, that is pretty much the situation. The howls of outraged anguish from those who were not able to dictate (really bad) content or practices form the core of our organized opposition. That does not mean systemic deficiencies don't exist; just that we must look and think in a noisy environment.

Fred

...

On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:

...

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

Where "doesn't work" is mostly defined as "didn't give the result I demanded".

I've been part of that dispute resolution process for many years, and came out of it with the (admittedly cynical) lesson that the vast majority of vocal critics of it have become so as a result of "losing" to it for having been in the wrong in the first place.

When someone leaves in a tiff because they have been prevented from getting their way against consensus, then the system is arguably doing exactly what it's been designed for.

Of /course/ nobody ends up in a conflict on the projects without being convinced that they are in the right; and if they end up on the losing side, they will clearly feel that they were wronged.  We play up the concept of discussion leading to consensus but -- let's not kid ourselves -- we are all humans and thus subject to ego, stubbornness, and personality conflicts.

There *are* no vast, sweeping injustices.  No system is perfect and, occasionally, errors *are* made; but the leap from "the system didn't let me get my way" to "the system is broken/dying" is all to easy to make, and is an unavoidable result of humans interacting.

This certainly could be improved.  More education of users upfront might prevent the confrontations in the first place; less reliance on established cliques would reduce groupthink and exaggerated conservatism.  More robots and fewer humans would reduce the effects of human nature...

-- Marc

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On the contrary, the Arbitration Committee has the responsibility and the power. That they do not discharge the full remit is another matter. People have ran for and been elected to the committee on a platform of not discharging the responsibility it was given.

Fred

No, I just responded to a problem that I recognized well.

If you call him/her this or that is not important.

The important thing is that the person (or group of persons) has the responsibility and the power to fulfil its task, i.e. to protect Wiki-users from abuses and mobbing. Today nobody has neither that responsibility nor that power.

regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 18:44 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

And your solution is an ombudsman, or what? I know there is a solution that you have in mind. In fact, it looks very much like a solution in search of a problem. Out with it!

Fred

...

The problem is that "howls of outraged anguish" seems to come from the admins not from the newbies.

But that was not the question here. The question was that the Wikis lack an instance that people can turn to when they are harassed and mobbed in the wikis, be that newbies or admins, children or old folks, women or men.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 18:03 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Yes, that is pretty much the situation. The howls of outraged anguish from those who were not able to dictate (really bad) content or practices form the core of our organized opposition. That does not mean systemic deficiencies don't exist; just that we must look and think in a noisy environment.

Fred

...

On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:

...

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

Where "doesn't work" is mostly defined as "didn't give the result I demanded".

I've been part of that dispute resolution process for many years, and came out of it with the (admittedly cynical) lesson that the vast majority of vocal critics of it have become so as a result of "losing" to it for having been in the wrong in the first place.

When someone leaves in a tiff because they have been prevented from getting their way against consensus, then the system is arguably doing exactly what it's been designed for.

Of /course/ nobody ends up in a conflict on the projects without being convinced that they are in the right; and if they end up on the losing side, they will clearly feel that they were wronged.  We play up the concept of discussion leading to consensus but -- let's not kid ourselves -- we are all humans and thus subject to ego, stubbornness, and personality conflicts.

There *are* no vast, sweeping injustices.  No system is perfect and, occasionally, errors *are* made; but the leap from "the system didn't let me get my way" to "the system is broken/dying" is all to easy to make, and is an unavoidable result of humans interacting.

This certainly could be improved.  More education of users upfront might prevent the confrontations in the first place; less reliance on established cliques would reduce groupthink and exaggerated conservatism.  More robots and fewer humans would reduce the effects of human nature...

-- Marc

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

You see, that's the difference, when I see NuclearWarfare I think tried trusted and true; he has a long track record on Wikipedia, whatever his real name is. By the way, the actual identity of all arbitrators, oversighters, etc are verified by the Foundation.

Fred

The Arbitration Committe is a step in the right direction. I was probably never informed about it because it is only available for a small number of Wikis, and I speak about Wikis in general (including the Swedish Wikipedia).

The Committe is obviously alive and kicking in the English Wikipedia. When I look at other Committes they seem dormant or "dead". As I said earlier I don't believe this problem is as big in the English Wikipedia as it is in some smaller Wikis, so it is more important that the others were alive.

There are however some principal problems with the Arbitration Committee (and I will now use the English one as an example). I think these problems are symptomatic for the Wiki-org, and reflects what I meant by that the problem is not seriously addressed.

I don't care if there is a committe for all Wikis or one for every Wiki, the import thing is that they work (or for that matter what this instance is called).

1. The members are not independent of

the Wikis. It is obvious that they still work on the Wikipedia. That means that they run the risk of still having loyalities to old friends. It is like when I asked an Ombudsman why he didn't intervene when he saw abuses, and he answered "I don't want to because they (the abusers) are my friends".

2. The members have no responsibility.

First of all they are volunteers and they are anonymous. This means that the arbitration is simply moved from a bigger to a smaller group within the same community.

The members have no responsibility, i.e. they are not accountable for their decisions. How can you make someone called "NuclearWarfare" accountable (no offense intended, I don't know this person, it is an example.) Would you buy a used car from someone who called himself "NuclearWarfare"? Would you put your little daughter in care of someone who just calls himself " NuclearWarfare"?

If not, why would you put the question whether your daughter has been mobbed and harassed in a Wiki in the hands of someone who only identifies himself as "NuclearWarfare"?

No, it needs to be professional people (with enough knowledge about the Wikis) who is hired by the organisation (local or global) and thereby also represents the organisation and answers to the organisation.

Someone pointed at Facebook and other social medias earlier and said that the problem with mobbing is much bigger there. It might be, but the most of these medias actually take active part in stopping mobbing and abuses. You can contact them and they will often respond very quickly. Some of us may think that they are even to restrictive, but they take anyhow their responsibility.

The Wikis on the other hand take no responsibility, not for what is written and not for who people are treated in the Wiki communities.

This lack of responsibility is I think at the heart of this question, and is the soil in which these abuses can grow.

3. Since the members are not

independent they can not act on their own initiative which is absolutely necessary. Not all users, especially children, have the courage to speak up even if they are treated very badly. If the members were responsible for the actions in the Wikis they must also be able to take action when they see abuses.

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 21:21 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

On the contrary, the Arbitration Committee has the responsibility and the power. That they do not discharge the full remit is another matter. People have ran for and been elected to the committee on a platform of not discharging the responsibility it was given.

Fred

...

No, I just responded to a problem that I recognized well.

If you call him/her this or that is not important.

The important thing is that the person (or group of persons) has the responsibility and the power to fulfil its task, i.e. to protect Wiki-users from abuses and mobbing. Today nobody has neither that responsibility nor that power.

regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 18:44 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

And your solution is an ombudsman, or what? I know there is a solution that you have in mind. In fact, it looks very much like a solution in search of a problem. Out with it!

Fred

...

The problem is that "howls of outraged anguish" seems to come from the admins not from the newbies.

But that was not the question here. The question was that the Wikis lack an instance that people can turn to when they are harassed and mobbed in the wikis, be that newbies or admins, children or old folks, women or men.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 18:03 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Yes, that is pretty much the situation. The howls of outraged anguish from those who were not able to dictate (really bad) content or practices form the core of our organized opposition. That does not mean systemic deficiencies don't exist; just that we must look and think in a noisy environment.

Fred

...

On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:

...

That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.

Where "doesn't work" is mostly defined as "didn't give the result I demanded".

I've been part of that dispute resolution process for many years, and came out of it with the (admittedly cynical) lesson that the vast majority of vocal critics of it have become so as a result of "losing" to it for having been in the wrong in the first place.

When someone leaves in a tiff because they have been prevented from getting their way against consensus, then the system is arguably doing exactly what it's been designed for.

Of /course/ nobody ends up in a conflict on the projects without being convinced that they are in the right; and if they end up on the losing side, they will clearly feel that they were wronged.  We play up the concept of discussion leading to consensus but -- let's not kid ourselves -- we are all humans and thus subject to ego, stubbornness, and personality conflicts.

There *are* no vast, sweeping injustices.  No system is perfect and, occasionally, errors *are* made; but the leap from "the system didn't let me get my way" to "the system is broken/dying" is all to easy to make, and is an unavoidable result of humans interacting.

This certainly could be improved.  More education of users upfront might prevent the confrontations in the first place; less reliance on established cliques would reduce groupthink and exaggerated conservatism.  More robots and fewer humans would reduce the effects of human nature...

-- Marc

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Well not using your real name if your handling arbitration is I think out of the question, anywhere in the world but the Wikis.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com An: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 20:22 Freitag, 6.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

You see, that's the difference, when I see NuclearWarfare I think tried trusted and true; he has a long track record on Wikipedia, whatever his real name is. By the way, the actual identity of all arbitrators, oversighters, etc are verified by the Foundation.

Fred

...and some of us, like Fred and myself, do not edit anonymously.  I know, it's a crazy idea to not assume we're all anonymous.

(You can't imagine how many Wikimedians I've met whose immediate followup after introductions is "So what's your real name?")

Well that is because you are not forced to register your real name and address before starting an account in the Wikis. Of course you can still use a pseudonym while working, but the org. would know who the users are. While diminish the will to mob, abuse, and vandalise tremendously when your true identity is known.

I personally have always noticed that it is much better to use ones real name. I notice that aggressive people are less willing to attack someone whose name they know. It is even better if you show your face. People are much less willing to attack someone who they feel they know. The persons who still attack are often mentally instable and easy to track and report to the police.

Regards, lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 23:24 Freitag, 6.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Well not using your real name if your handling arbitration is I think out of the question, anywhere in the world but the Wikis.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

We have discovered that users who are thwarted in using aggressive behavior to control content will go after people who use their real name and played a role in curbing their behavior; call their employer, call their mother at home, it goes on. Using real names often does not work.

Fred

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Sorry, not dreaming.

I am used to do these sort of things. Part of my daily work.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de CC: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 0:46 Samstag, 7.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

The persons who still attack are often mentally instable and easy to track and report to the police.

Regards, lars Gardenius

Dream on...

One point is correct; you WILL have something to report to the police.

Fred

Thank you for the info.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de CC: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 10:10 Samstag, 7.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Well that is because you are not forced to register your real name and address before starting an account in the Wikis. Of course you can still use a pseudonym while working, but the org. would know who the users are. While diminish the will to mob, abuse, and vandalise tremendously when your true identity is known.

I personally have always noticed that it is much better to use ones real name. I notice that aggressive people are less willing to attack someone whose name they know. It is even better if you show your face. People are much less willing to attack someone who they feel they know. The persons who still attack are often mentally instable and easy to track and report to the police.

Regards, lars Gardenius

Ok, here's someone who seems to share some of your ideas:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:John_Vandenberg/WMF_BoT_candidature_not...

"There are many members of 'our community' who have 10,000+ edits and are maliciously controlling negative content about other people, and doing it anonymously. There are regular complaints being made on the talk pages, to OTRS, and in social media about these editors. The problem is made worse by our culture of protecting anonymity, resulting in an assumption that 'outing' anyone is a bannable offense, even if they are one of these problem editors. I predict that Wikipedia will increasingly become ridiculed for its current position of allowing anonymous edits to biographies of living people unless we can build better systems of identifying and preventing these problem editors. We need to innovate. We need to warn existing and future problem editors that malicious editing from an anonymous accounts is not safe, and the media is starting to undertake real investigative journalism of Wikipedia editors where they see problems.

The most important step in fixing the cultural problem is to introduce the ability for Wikipedia accounts to be voluntarily linked to identities in other systems, such as twitter, facebook, identica, etc. This could be included in the account creation process, provided that it is optional and the risks are clearly explained. With this in place, new accounts can declare up front that they are not trying to hide their identity, and do not mind their identity and COI being discussed publicly.

The next strategic measure that should be taken is the introduction of a complaint system designed for average Internet users with no wiki editing skills, and that complaint management system needs to support resolution and escalation of complaints (i.e. 'mark resolved', with 'mark unresolved' that ensures the complaint can't be 'resolved' again by the same person who marked it resolved the first time; an escalate function that feeds into a mediation process; rather than overusing the 'block' an account functionality,..."

From one of the arbitrators who ran for the board.

Fred

On 07.09.2013 00:12, Lars Gardenius wrote: People are much less willing to attack someone who they feel they

...

know. The persons who still attack are often mentally instable and easy to track and report to the police.

Regards, lars Gardenius

Are you fucking serious? I was editing under my real name for three years, and even now my real name is pretty easy to figure out. At one point, in the Russian Wikipedia, I protected an article to prevent a vanity editing of a lady who claimed to be a psychologist and the chairwoman of some union of psychologist. As a revenge, she made a search, found my university website, and published a piece where she made, on the alleged claim she is a psychologist, some very suggestive (and wrong) statements about my sexual orientation, my IQ, and my mental health. What police you are talking about? Dutch police? They would not care about a piece written in Russian and published in Russia. Russian police? They are worse than ordinary criminals, and it would be crazy to go to them and ask for something. Formally, there is no attack anyway, but the piece was still published, indexed by search engines, and noticed by some of the people I know.

Cheers Yaroslav

That is a good example. People with serious mental disability may be obvious, but sociopaths and paranoids are not, at least not to the authorities. They are often smart, capable, and mean; and can cause almost anyone real grief. I suppose I should not refer to Hitler, of course, as that would be proof that the conversation is over according to Mike Godwin, but, in fact, he does not suggest that one should never cite Hitler as an example of a paranoid psychopath.

Fred

привет Ярослав,

Yes, I am very serious. I was though only arguing about the members of this instance, be it an 'arbitration committe' or an ombudsman or whatever, with the duty to protect users from mobbing and abuses in the Wikis.

We must though be aware that there are very different countries in the world. What is possible in one part of the world is not possible in another. I am aware of the present situation in Russia and pity the Russians. I think the Wikis should at least reflect the society they are working in, not be worse, and it could be difficult to be better (I am still just talking about stopping mobbing and abuses in the Wikis).

I am certain that a committe could help against mobbing in Wikis even in Russia and in other countries with similar kind of problems. You could though perhaps, for reason that you express, not get any help from the outside society. If the members of such a committe would have any problems with the authorities or hooligans in such a country I don't know, but that could be an argument for placing it outside Russia (and other countries). Perhaps even just have one international instance.

Let me tell you a little about my own experiences to explain what I wrote. In my country we have a lot of ombudsmen to protect citizens from child abuse, harassment of immigrants and a lot of other things. The persons working with these questions are very public, you can find their names, photos etc. on the web. I have had a lot of contacts with these people during the last year. I have never heard of one single instance when they have been attacked, harassed or anything else. That is quite natural, I think, they have the protection of the surrounding society. If someone harassed or abused them, he/she be sued or arrested.

The situation is the same for people working against mobbing in schools and companies. They are of course also public persons. Still I have never heard of anyone being attacked. The reason is the same as above. If these persons were anonymous it would partly look very stupid and partly they could not do their job properly.

I do not see any reason why the situation wouldn't be the same for such an instance in the Wikis. As I said above the persons must be professional and hired by the Wikis, to get the right authority and respect. Where they are placed physically is not so important since there role is only to act within the Wikis (not in the society), perhaps one shouldn't choose Russia though.

I really think that it also has a psychological role not to be anonymous. The method of mobbers and extreme political movements is to dehumanize it's opponents. They put a label on their enemies to make them not human. I think being anonymous works in the same direction. It deprives you of your identity and thus makes you easier to attack.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

Indeed; however, a number of other strategies are also used to dominate.

Fred

Hi David

Great post! Reminds me of something I saw last night on Russia Today, Keiser Report about JPMorgan and co. They always win, no matter what. And you've just hit the nail on the head.

But that goes as far as RD goes, which is one issue. Your way of doing it adequately solves those unpleasant encounters. The other issue unfortunately is that the project is being infiltrated by corporates being paid to edit. In this instance, I have been able to collect enough evidence to make a case that one of more editors are here to do nothing else but ensure good press for Microsoft. But apparently 'outing' is a cardinal sin and the most unviolable of violations.

So, I'll take your advice and will go work on other issues - not necessarily WP, I think I'll give this a wide berth for a while.

Good one! Keep it up.

Regards,

Rui

On 8 September 2013 23:16, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:

All live societies have conflict. WP, with perhaps the greatest personal and social diversity of any organization, will inevitably have quite a bit of it. All societies also have some form of dispute resolution. In all societies, the purpose of dispute resolution is to resolve disputes, not necessarily to bring about Justice. In practice, the effect is almost always to resolve disputes by reinforcing the structure of the established society against dissidents and mavericks. A DR process sponsored and controlled by the central organization using professionals, will do this effectively--that is, they will effectively support the existing power structure and the people in positions of authority. If they are clever, they will manage to reconcile as many dissidents as possible with the overall structure, without being too harsh on them. But if they are to be effective, they must also deal with those who wish to subvert the structure of the society, though a sophisticated process can also do this relatively gently.

The centralizing tendencies of WP are already very great--in some cases too great to permit the users to have the necessary flexibility and independence to remain creative. The effect of multiple layers of appeal can be to correct some injustices, but it can also more effectively suppress individualism, by diverting direct conflicts into bureaucratic channels & exhausting the participants with elaborate procedure. People may wish an arrangement to correct injustice against them--but what if the result is to decide for their opponents? At least in the enWP, I advise people against using any level or variant of formal DR if there is any alternative: if you bring a case for decision, you may permanently lose; if you avoid formal process, you can keep trying. Those people who have asked me for advice and gone to arb com or AN/I or other process against my invariable advice not to, have always been the worse for it. The better remedy for losing a particular argument on an issue is to work on other issues. The better remedy for pervasive injustice is to organize opposition.

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

...

...

привет Ð¯Ñ€Ð¾Ñ Ð»Ð°Ð²,

Yes, I am very serious. I was though only arguing about the members of this instance, be it an 'arbitration committe' or an ombudsman or whatever, with the duty to protect users from mobbing and abuses in the Wikis.

We must though be aware that there are very different countries in the world. What is possible in one part of the world is not possible in another. I am aware of the present situation in Russia and pity the Russians. I think the Wikis should at least reflect the society they

are

...

...

working in, not be worse, and it could be difficult to be better (I am still just talking about stopping mobbing and abuses in the Wikis).

I am certain that a committe could help against mobbing in Wikis even

in

...

...

Russia and in other countries with similar kind of problems. You could though perhaps, for reason that you express, not get any help from the outside society. If the members of such a committe would have any problems with the authorities or hooligans in such a country I don't know, but that could be an argument for placing it outside Russia (and other countries). Perhaps even just have one international instance.

Let me tell you a little about my own experiences to explain what I wrote. In my country we have a lot of ombudsmen to protect citizens

from

...

...

child abuse, harassment of immigrants and a lot of other things. The persons working with these questions are very public, you can find

their

...

...

names, photos etc. on the web. I have had a lot of contacts with these people during the last year. I have never heard of one single instance when they have been attacked, harassed or anything else. That is quite natural, I think, they have the protection of the surrounding society.

If

...

...

someone harassed or abused them, he/she be sued or arrested.

The situation is the same for people working against mobbing in schools and companies. They are of course also public persons. Still I have

never

...

...

heard of anyone being attacked. The reason is the same as above. If

these

...

...

persons were anonymous it would partly look very stupid and partly they could not do their job properly.

I do not see any reason why the situation wouldn't be the same for such an instance in the Wikis. As I said above the persons must be professional and hired by the Wikis, to get the right authority and respect. Where they are placed physically is not so important since

there

...

...

role is only to act within the Wikis (not in the society), perhaps one shouldn't choose Russia though.

I really think that it also has a psychological role not to be

anonymous.

...

...

The method of mobbers and extreme political movements is to dehumanize it's opponents. They put a label on their enemies to make them not

human.

...

...

I think being anonymous works in the same direction. It deprives you of your identity and thus makes you easier to attack.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

Indeed; however, a number of other strategies are also used to dominate.

Fred

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

-- David Goodman

DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

As said it was only an example. And a very small part of my argumentation.

You must however understand that the average user has no reason to feel the way you do and he has no possibilty to know who these persons are.

Regards,

Lars Gardenius

Someone like NulearWarfare has made tens of thousands of publicly viewable edits and participated in scores of arbitration cases; most of which are also publicly viewable. The edits and decisions were also available to the Wikipedia community which selected him for responsibility.

Fred

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Removing the mediation committee from that process might streamline things a bit. I notice the mediation cabal has closed its doors since the last time I looked.

-Chad

The dispute resolution page is a little bit of a mess, but we're working on streamlining things. Informal mediation was closed as it had been made largely redundant by the dispute resolution noticeboard. The same could perhaps be said about the mediation committee, but it's a long-standing process and I don't see it being closed anytime soon, regardless of how effective it is, due to its longevity, and due to the fact there'd be nowhere to take a dispute after DRN.

I did have a chat to a few folk at Wikimania and am coming up with an alternative DR process to try and take the pain out of things - DRN would have a go at resolving the dispute, and if that failed, a moderated discussion would take place where the question(s) or matters under dispute would be clearly defined, and then put to the wider community for a discussion. I believe there was recently a discussion like this on Jerusalem.

But I think the main thing that holds our processes back is a lack of involved volunteers. It causes burnout. You can't scream "aaaaaah, this process sucks and it's broken!" and expect things to magically fix itself. Getting involved will go a long way to fixing things.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Sep 2013, at 5:33 am, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

...

It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Removing the mediation committee from that process might streamline things a bit. I notice the mediation cabal has closed its doors since the last time I looked.

-Chad

I confess I'm not up to date; hardly anyone ever tries to seriously argue with me; and, often, if they do, I find something more productive than arguing with an idiot. (See, I am a very bad citizen). The Dispute resolution pages should be up to date and reflect current practices, whatever they are; in many cases matters that once would have been considered for arbitration are now handled by administrators.

Fred

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and I don't feel you should say that everyone is wrong but yourself. Cheerio.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Sep 2013, at 3:30 am, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

No, I don't believe you are right.

The problem is the construction of these Arbitration Committe and the mediation process. You can no build that on volunteers, who are anonymous (like "NuclearWarfare") and not accountable.

You need to recruit people who are educated and trained to handle these types of questions. Otherwise you can never protect users from mobbing and abuses.

See also my answer to Fred Bauder, I find it unnecessary to repeat here.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Steven Zhang cro0016@gmail.com An: "fredbaud@fairpoint.net" fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org CC: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 0:07 Freitag, 6.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

The dispute resolution page is a little bit of a mess, but we're working on streamlining things. Informal mediation was closed as it had been made largely redundant by the dispute resolution noticeboard. The same could perhaps be said about the mediation committee, but it's a long-standing process and I don't see it being closed anytime soon, regardless of how effective it is, due to its longevity, and due to the fact there'd be nowhere to take a dispute after DRN.

I did have a chat to a few folk at Wikimania and am coming up with an alternative DR process to try and take the pain out of things - DRN would have a go at resolving the dispute, and if that failed, a moderated discussion would take place where the question(s) or matters under dispute would be clearly defined, and then put to the wider community for a discussion. I believe there was recently a discussion like this on Jerusalem.

But I think the main thing that holds our processes back is a lack of involved volunteers. It causes burnout. You can't scream "aaaaaah, this process sucks and it's broken!" and expect things to magically fix itself. Getting involved will go a long way to fixing things.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Sep 2013, at 5:33 am, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

...

...

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

...

It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content.

Removing the mediation committee from that process might streamline things a bit. I notice the mediation cabal has closed its doors since the last time I looked.

-Chad

I confess I'm not up to date; hardly anyone ever tries to seriously argue with me; and, often, if they do, I find something more productive than arguing with an idiot. (See, I am a very bad citizen). The Dispute resolution pages should be up to date and reflect current practices, whatever they are; in many cases matters that once would have been considered for arbitration are now handled by administrators.

Fred

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On 7 Sep 2013, at 8:14 am, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

Sorry, but I didn't say that everone, but me, is wrong.

I said that I believe that you are wrong concerning this question.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

Fair enough. I have to agree with the comments made by Marc Pelletier before. I respect that you have your own opinion and I have mine. I'll continue my work to improve the process and you of course are free to take your own path. Farewell.

Steve

Thanks, Lars

Much appreciated.

Regards,

Rui

On 4 September 2013 23:35, Lars Gardenius lars.gardenius@yahoo.de wrote:

I think you are completely right and it is a big problem in the Wiki-world that is not being addressed by anyone in a leading position.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

---

Von: Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 23:08 Mittwoch, 4.September 2013 Betreff: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared to people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long list of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having to fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the 'outsider' that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to temper his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round at a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making the WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a cabal.

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly - was anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know that they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here,

http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to XP. For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is an upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending the entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not the first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed, labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on that page, but my entry was closed within minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I don't do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number of initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am happy to see that things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

-- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Some _are_ better at it than others. Also some are better at editing then dealing with other people, and some are just unable to deal with other people in an environment where to a large extent, one is not held accountable for one's actions. This is the downside of anonymity. en:WP is in general not a very friendly environment. I am not saying that the majority of editors are unfriendly, but there is enough of an impact from the antisocial side to make the average experience unclude some significant unpleasantness. Not everyone is prepared to tolerate that when doing unpaid work. When the unnecessary unpleasantness is dealt out by adminitrators, people leave. When enough people leave, the progect stagnates and eventually collapses. Fortunately it is likely that the pieces will be picked up by another project, so the work will not be lost. Cheers, Peter Southwood

----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Lim" jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 6:01 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I think what we need to consider here is where the loyalties of many of these so-called "problematic" editors reside, whether their dedication to maintaining the content where their expertise has been valuable has been harmful to the overall health of the community. While I think we are all on the side of Wikipedia here and we all have a genuine interest in improving the encyclopedia for everyone, we have gone to the point where we have started to perpetuate the idea that some are better at it than others, similar to that declaration in Animal Farmthat "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

There are many reasons as to why this is the case, but I guess we need to reiterate the need for us to break down barriers here, both between ourselves as editors (step away from compartmentalizing ourselves into spaces where everyone else will agree with us because we are familiar with them), and between ourselves as people. The latter, however, is very difficult to do, and it is one of the challenges that we have to face if we will want to assure Wikipedia's future success.

Regards,

Josh

JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Block I1, AB Political Science Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

Trustee (2010-2013), Wikimedia Philippines Member, Ateneo Debate Society Member, The Assembly

jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com | +63 (927) 531-8301 Friendster/Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://akira123323.livejournal.com

---

From: Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2013 5:08 AM Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared to people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long list of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having to fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the 'outsider' that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to temper his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round at a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making the WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a cabal.

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly - was anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know that they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here, http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to XP. For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is an upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending the entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not the first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed, labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on that page, but my entry was closed within minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I don't do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number of initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am happy to see that things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

-- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I don't think it is possible, in a worldwide organization like the Wikis, to be reliant on "where the loyalties of many of these so-called "problematic" editors reside". I think that the Wiki-organization in itself must be responsible that the Wiki-users are not abused or harassed, just because they do not belong to the same "group" as these "problematic" editors" do.

I think that the contemporary organization (or lack of organization) reflects a very naive view of how people interact in a society. It is like believing that you don't need a police organization in an ordinary society because people can handle all conflicts among themselves. That is very naive and has often led to the creation of criminal organizations like the Mafia and worse.

Also the Wiki-world needs to protect its "inhabitants" from abuse and mobbing, and therefore needs an organization that can fulfil these duties.

Regards, Lars Gardenius

________________________________ Von: Josh Lim jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 6:01 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

I think what we need to consider here is where the loyalties of many of these so-called "problematic" editors reside, whether their dedication to maintaining the content where their expertise has been valuable has been harmful to the overall health of the community.  While I think we are all on the side of Wikipedia here and we all have a genuine interest in improving the encyclopedia for everyone, we have gone to the point where we have started to perpetuate the idea that some are better at it than others, similar to that declaration in Animal Farmthat "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

There are many reasons as to why this is the case, but I guess we need to reiterate the need for us to break down barriers here, both between ourselves as editors (step away from compartmentalizing ourselves into spaces where everyone else will agree with us because we are familiar with them), and between ourselves as people.  The latter, however, is very difficult to do, and it is one of the challenges that we have to face if we will want to assure Wikipedia's future success.

Regards,

Josh

JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Block I1, AB Political Science Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

Trustee (2010-2013), Wikimedia Philippines Member, Ateneo Debate Society Member, The Assembly

jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com | +63 (927) 531-8301 Friendster/Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://akira123323.livejournal.com

________________________________ From: Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2013 5:08 AM Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared to people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long list of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having to fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the 'outsider' that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to temper his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round at a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making the WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a cabal.

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly - was anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know that they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here, http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to XP. For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is an upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending the entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not the first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed, labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on that page, but my entry was closed within minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I don't do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number of initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am happy to see that things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

Hi Tom

Thanks for your contribution. However, you seem to have missed the point.

So Lisa violates the 3RR principle and you lecture me. And I lodge a complaint over the 3RR and that gets closed without due process.

Would you care to touch on those tho aspects and advance your opinion on the 3RR violation being swept under the carpet? And reporting of a 3RR violation being swept under the same carpet?

I must presume that you condone the action of the other editor?

And for your information, everytime I have come across people that monitor even the talkpage of their favourite articles you can be sure that it is about the content of what is posted, but about whether or not the comment casts the subject of the article in a bad light.

Perhaps you might care to look into this and look into the edit history of these editors?

Regards,

Rui

On 5 September 2013 14:18, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:

Lets just be clear here, the contributuion Rui is talking about was as follows:

Must be a joke - how can moving from W8 to W XP be called a downgrade? W8 is crap! I want a computer, not a basket of "apps" for retarded morons!< https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_XP&oldid=5715337...

...

His response to its removal is to suggest those removing it are paid Pro-Microsoft editors.

Rui, what I'm going to suggest here is that you've not really understood the processes that go into collaborating on an article. You may well be right that the content needs changing, but your presentation of a personal opinion in such a ranting form makes it very hard to collaborate.

Look at it from another side. If you'd put a lot of effort into writing and article and then someone turned up on the talk page to post what looked like a personal rant about the content, citing no sources and putting very little in the way of suggested changes.... would you be peeved? Would you wonder if perhaps that editor was a paid editor sent to disrupt the article by a competitor?

Would you be offended if Lisa held that view about you (that you were a paid advocate?).

So, yes, Wikipedia has a big problem. But it's not just abusive admins (we have a few) and grumpy editors, or paid advocates. It is a broad spectrum of problems - and in this case you were the one with the less-than-perfect contribution.

Broadly speaking this is an education problem; we need to bring more focus on the concept of the talk page as a collaboration portal *not* as a place to discuss the topic (i.e. NOTFORUM) and we also need to emphasise the importance of making comments in the right tone, and with supporting sources.

Regards, Tom

On 4 September 2013 22:08, Rui Correia correia.rui@gmail.com wrote:

...

Greetings to All

Let me start by saying that I don't do much here at the WP, not compared

to

...

people who make hundreds of edits a week. I would love to, have a long

list

...

of "to-do", but unfortunately time is not on my side.

In my limited involvemet here, I have seen many a good editor leave the project. Mostly, people leave because they can't take it anymore having

to

...

fight the 'blocks' of defenders that coalesce around certain topics.

In itself, though not very healthy, such blocks forming around topis is fine. What is not fine is that if any issue gets referred to a higher process for a resolution, it is often the same people grouping of people previously involved in disputes on the same topic who come to the resolution forum to issue a decision. However, it is always the

'outsider'

...

that loses. He gets acused of everything under the sun, and gets 'good advice' from supposedly neutral editors, urging him to calm down, to

temper

...

his language etc. It is like trying to point out that the earth is round

at

...

a monthly meetng of the fat-earthers. That is not healthy and is making

the

...

WP processes look like a kangaroo court run by a cabal.

And I expect pretty much the same reaction to this email.

I pointed out in an ealier email to this list the difficulty that one encounters when you include something negative about certain big corporations. I was stoned and made to feel that I was wrong and everbody else was right. The reaction was tantamount to a chorus of "yes, we know there are problems, but don't say it out loud, someone might hear you!".

Let's for argument's say that I was wrong. But - more importantantly -

was

...

anything done to investigate what I was saying? What if there are legions out there paid to sanitise the pages of big corporations? And we know

that

...

they exist, and that WP has taken up the issue as in here,

http://nick-xomba-ceo.xomba.com/microsoft_accused_of_paying_blogger_to_alter...

...

I made a silly remark on a Talk page about the choice of the word "downgrade" to refer to people using Windows 8 who wanted to go back to

XP.

...

For a failed product, by Microsoft's own admission, going back to XP is

an

...

upgrade, going back to sanity, not a downgrade.

I was first accused of trolling, then something else, then of offending

the

...

entire community of users of Windows 8. The editor who is adamant - not

the

...

first time - to purge ant-MS from the talkpage violated the 3RR, but nothing gets done about it. I reported the 3RR, and it was immediately closed, labelled as being relatiatory. There is a backlog of issues on

that

...

page, but my entry was closed within minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_w...

...

It was closed, claiming that it was already being addressed elsewhere.

So, I too will consider my stay here. Like I said right at the top, I

don't

...

do much here, so I am certain I will not even be missed. I edit in eight languages, small little bits here and there. I participated in a number

of

...

initiaves on the development of Chapters in Africa and am happy to see

that

...

things are moving. I had the honour and privilege to meet Jimmy Wales in South Africa and to discuss a few things relating to WP in Africa.

So, it is time to wind down anr retire into a corner. I am busy with a novel, I am sure that is where I should invest my time and energy.

Sincere regards to all, happy editing

Rui Correia

-- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe