Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being disruptive on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he or she be treated.
I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become the source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
- White Cat
White Cat hett schreven:
Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being disruptive on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he or she be treated.
I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become the source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
- White Cat
That should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting, shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not they won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?
Marcus Buck
Consider the scenario where a disruptive user is indefinitely blocked on a particular wiki. He decides to have a "fresh start" in causing the same slow-paced disruption on all sister projects one by one...
All wikis are independent, yes. But when dealing with interwiki disruption, this should not get in the way of collaboration between wikis in dealing with disruptive users.
Interwiki vandals for example are promptly dealt with with or without this collaboration but other kinds of disruption, particularly slow paced ones need such collaboration.
We currently lack such a median and communication between wikis to deal with interwiki issues such as interwiki disruption.
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
White Cat hett schreven:
Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being
disruptive
on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he
or
she be treated.
I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become
the
source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
- White CatThat should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting, shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not they won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?
Marcus Buck
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well, with GlobalBlocking, we can now block abusive IP addresses across multiple wikis. Blocking their account is still a local act, until a "Block Global Account" extension gets made (I believe someone is working on it, but I could be wrong?)
-Chad
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:27 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Consider the scenario where a disruptive user is indefinitely blocked on a particular wiki. He decides to have a "fresh start" in causing the same slow-paced disruption on all sister projects one by one...
All wikis are independent, yes. But when dealing with interwiki disruption, this should not get in the way of collaboration between wikis in dealing with disruptive users.
Interwiki vandals for example are promptly dealt with with or without this collaboration but other kinds of disruption, particularly slow paced ones need such collaboration.
We currently lack such a median and communication between wikis to deal with interwiki issues such as interwiki disruption.
- White CatOn Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
White Cat hett schreven:
Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being
disruptive
on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he
or
she be treated.
I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become
the
source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
- White CatThat should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting, shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not they won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?
Marcus Buck
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Well, with GlobalBlocking, we can now block abusive IP addresses across multiple wikis. Blocking their account is still a local act, until a "Block Global Account" extension gets made (I believe someone is working on it, but I could be wrong?)
-Chad
This thread is about White Cat wanting to get Jack Merridew on simple.wikiquote and simple.wiktionary becuse he feels stalked due that JM always votes contrary to him and sometimes he edits non mainspace pages where Cat also edited.
He went to stewards channel earlier today demanding we take measures about it. After 4 of us refused, he ended up putting on ignore (as usual) pretty much anyone who spoke and started namecalling werdna (who is precisely working on global block) for not agreeing with him.
Global blocking won't be used for petty personal disputes. And for what I gather, it will work only on IPs.
And no, "being blocked on a wiki" doesn't automatically grant the right to request same blocks in all other wikis
At 15:30 -0400 24/4/08, Chad wrote:
Well, with GlobalBlocking, we can now block abusive IP addresses across multiple wikis. Blocking their account is still a local act, until a "Block Global Account" extension gets made (I believe someone is working on it, but I could be wrong?)
-Chad
Surely the nasty person can create multiple identities across multiple wikis?
Gordo
2008/4/24 Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org:
White Cat hett schreven:
Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being disruptive on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he or she be treated. I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become the source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
That should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting, shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not they won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?
Depends on what the person is doing. I referred previously to how the main reason for global IP blocking is so as to deal with persistent cross-wiki vandals; many take to trying to harass people (e.g. blocking admins, previous wiki-foes) on other wikis, vandalising in their names, etc. (SUL helps with this, but many targets are not admins.) The cases I'm thinking of are bad editors who are sufficiently unambiguously vandalising and/or harassing that a steward could clearly act, for instance.
- d.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:52 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/24 Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org:
White Cat hett schreven:
Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being disruptive on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he or she be treated. I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become the source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
That should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting, shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not they won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?
Depends on what the person is doing. I referred previously to how the main reason for global IP blocking is so as to deal with persistent cross-wiki vandals; many take to trying to harass people (e.g. blocking admins, previous wiki-foes) on other wikis, vandalising in their names, etc. (SUL helps with this, but many targets are not admins.) The cases I'm thinking of are bad editors who are sufficiently unambiguously vandalising and/or harassing that a steward could clearly act, for instance.
- d.
Indeed, I don't think White Cat's example is the purpose of this - this is for cases of clear-cut vandalism across wikis - Examples include the time I went and scrubbed "Wikipedia is Communism" off the Navajo Wikipedia on a couple dozen pages (including the main page!). A global block is needed in a case like that.
WilyD
Look let me give a real-life example. Say you commit a crime in the US, if you were to escape to Mexico you would freely roam aaround because you have not done anything wrong there.
Each individual wiki is independent yes, but we need a level of communication among wikis. Like between fr.wikipedia and fr.wikibooks or en.wiktionary and simple.wikipedia, same language sister project.
- White Cat
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:52 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/24 Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org:
White Cat hett schreven:
Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being
disruptive
on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it.
If the
same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for
on other
wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how
should he or
she be treated. I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user
become the
source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to
do.
That should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting, shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not
they
won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?
Depends on what the person is doing. I referred previously to how the main reason for global IP blocking is so as to deal with persistent cross-wiki vandals; many take to trying to harass people (e.g. blocking admins, previous wiki-foes) on other wikis, vandalising in their names, etc. (SUL helps with this, but many targets are not admins.) The cases I'm thinking of are bad editors who are sufficiently unambiguously vandalising and/or harassing that a steward could clearly act, for instance.
- d.
Indeed, I don't think White Cat's example is the purpose of this - this is for cases of clear-cut vandalism across wikis - Examples include the time I went and scrubbed "Wikipedia is Communism" off the Navajo Wikipedia on a couple dozen pages (including the main page!). A global block is needed in a case like that.
WilyD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
White Cat hett schreven:
Look let me give a real-life example. Say you commit a crime in the US, if you were to escape to Mexico you would freely roam aaround because you have not done anything wrong there.
Each individual wiki is independent yes, but we need a level of communication among wikis.
So you suggest to create an Interpol for Wikimedia projects? I don't think, that blocks on Wikimedia projects are comparable to "crimes". What kind of "communication among wikis" do you propose exactly?
Marcus Buck
White Cat wrote:
Look let me give a real-life example. Say you commit a crime in the US, if you were to escape to Mexico you would freely roam aaround because you have not done anything wrong there.
Each individual wiki is independent yes, but we need a level of communication among wikis. Like between fr.wikipedia and fr.wikibooks or en.wiktionary and simple.wikipedia, same language sister project.
Ah! Something like interwiki extradition. :-)
Ec
Can't wait for the politics of that one.
Community 1: Block him! UserABC was bad here! Community 2: He's a highly productive user here.
I'm sure we can all imagine how that'd end up.
-Chad
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Look let me give a real-life example. Say you commit a crime in the US, if you were to escape to Mexico you would freely roam aaround because you have not done anything wrong there.
Each individual wiki is independent yes, but we need a level of communication among wikis. Like between fr.wikipedia and fr.wikibooks or en.wiktionary and simple.wikipedia, same language sister project.
Ah! Something like interwiki extradition. :-)
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Indeed, just yesterday Poetlister was unblocked on en.wikipedia, at least partly based on her long history of good conduct at Wikiquote. One of the canonical ways to get unbanned is to go to another project and behave.
WilyD
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Can't wait for the politics of that one.
Community 1: Block him! UserABC was bad here! Community 2: He's a highly productive user here.
I'm sure we can all imagine how that'd end up.
-Chad
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Look let me give a real-life example. Say you commit a crime in the US, if you were to escape to Mexico you would freely roam aaround because you have not done anything wrong there.
Each individual wiki is independent yes, but we need a level of communication among wikis. Like between fr.wikipedia and fr.wikibooks or en.wiktionary and simple.wikipedia, same language sister project.
Ah! Something like interwiki extradition. :-)
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Exactly and the local community wasn't completely oblivious to Poetlisters conduct back on English wikipedia. He was carefully watched, tutored and polished to what he is now. His own effort was vital, no doubt, but he wasn't unguided.
What I am suggesting is not an Interwiki Police, I would be the first in line to oppose that. What I am suggesting is better communication between wikis. The arrogant tone between wikis should be abolished.
What I seek is better information sharing between wikis. I should not need to pay attention to individual noticeboards and block logs of every wiki. Intense cases of disruption should be noted in the same site.
For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared among checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to register the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should be prepared for it.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, just yesterday Poetlister was unblocked on en.wikipedia, at least partly based on her long history of good conduct at Wikiquote. One of the canonical ways to get unbanned is to go to another project and behave.
WilyD
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Can't wait for the politics of that one.
Community 1: Block him! UserABC was bad here! Community 2: He's a highly productive user here.
I'm sure we can all imagine how that'd end up.
-Chad
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Look let me give a real-life example. Say you commit a crime in
the US, if
you were to escape to Mexico you would freely roam aaround because
you have
not done anything wrong there.
Each individual wiki is independent yes, but we need a level of communication among wikis. Like between fr.wikipedia and
fr.wikibooks or
en.wiktionary and simple.wikipedia, same language sister project.
Ah! Something like interwiki extradition. :-)
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If you want better interwiki communication, then go do it. I can't agree more with that goal, but to make it work, users (esp. admins and CUs) need to go out and do it every day. For the most part, CUs /are/ doing this - that's what our mailing list is for. For admins, there is #wikimedia-admin, which is invite-only, but not hard to find someone to let you in. If you're not on IRC, then there is also drini's daylog (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Drini/daylog) and the vandalism noticeboard (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_reports#Current_cross_wiki_vandali sm).
Perhaps setting up an additional mailing list for admins involved cross-wiki to mirror the IRC channel would be useful? The CUs have both, why not both for admins too? Perhaps it'd be better to have it limited to members of SWMT rather than just admins? That point might need more thought, but I think a mailing list where this kind of info can be shared could well be useful (more useful than #wikimedia-admin).
Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: White Cat [mailto:wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com] Sent: May 6, 2008 1:23 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
Exactly and the local community wasn't completely oblivious to Poetlisters conduct back on English wikipedia. He was carefully watched, tutored and polished to what he is now. His own effort was vital, no doubt, but he wasn't unguided.
What I am suggesting is not an Interwiki Police, I would be the first in line to oppose that. What I am suggesting is better communication between wikis. The arrogant tone between wikis should be abolished.
What I seek is better information sharing between wikis. I should not need to pay attention to individual noticeboards and block logs of every wiki. Intense cases of disruption should be noted in the same site.
For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared among checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to register the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should be prepared for it.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, just yesterday Poetlister was unblocked on en.wikipedia, at least partly based on her long history of good conduct at Wikiquote. One of the canonical ways to get unbanned is to go to another project and behave.
WilyD
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Can't wait for the politics of that one.
Community 1: Block him! UserABC was bad here! Community 2: He's a highly productive user here.
I'm sure we can all imagine how that'd end up.
-Chad
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Look let me give a real-life example. Say you commit a crime in
the US, if
you were to escape to Mexico you would freely roam aaround because
you have
not done anything wrong there.
Each individual wiki is independent yes, but we need a level of communication among wikis. Like between fr.wikipedia and
fr.wikibooks or
en.wiktionary and simple.wikipedia, same language sister project.
Ah! Something like interwiki extradition. :-)
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Through my experience with an user, any public channel may not work if the user in the midst of the issue prefers private communications, IRC instead of WP:VP or its equivalent, or other dedicated forum and stated he won't take care of process transparency.
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:47 AM, mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
If you want better interwiki communication, then go do it. I can't agree more with that goal, but to make it work, users (esp. admins and CUs) need to go out and do it every day. For the most part, CUs /are/ doing this - that's what our mailing list is for. For admins, there is #wikimedia-admin, which is invite-only, but not hard to find someone to let you in. If you're not on IRC, then there is also drini's daylog (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Drini/daylog) and the vandalism noticeboard (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_reports#Current_cross_wiki_vandali sm).
Perhaps setting up an additional mailing list for admins involved cross-wiki to mirror the IRC channel would be useful? The CUs have both, why not both for admins too? Perhaps it'd be better to have it limited to members of SWMT rather than just admins? That point might need more thought, but I think a mailing list where this kind of info can be shared could well be useful (more useful than #wikimedia-admin).
Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: White Cat [mailto:wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com] Sent: May 6, 2008 1:23 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
Exactly and the local community wasn't completely oblivious to Poetlisters conduct back on English wikipedia. He was carefully watched, tutored and polished to what he is now. His own effort was vital, no doubt, but he wasn't unguided.
What I am suggesting is not an Interwiki Police, I would be the first in line to oppose that. What I am suggesting is better communication between wikis. The arrogant tone between wikis should be abolished.
What I seek is better information sharing between wikis. I should not need to pay attention to individual noticeboards and block logs of every wiki. Intense cases of disruption should be noted in the same site.
For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared among checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to register the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should be prepared for it.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, just yesterday Poetlister was unblocked on en.wikipedia, at least partly based on her long history of good conduct at Wikiquote. One of the canonical ways to get unbanned is to go to another project and behave.
WilyD
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Can't wait for the politics of that one.
Community 1: Block him! UserABC was bad here! Community 2: He's a highly productive user here.
I'm sure we can all imagine how that'd end up.
-Chad
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Look let me give a real-life example. Say you commit a crime in
the US, if
you were to escape to Mexico you would freely roam aaround because
you have
not done anything wrong there.
Each individual wiki is independent yes, but we need a level of communication among wikis. Like between fr.wikipedia and
fr.wikibooks or
en.wiktionary and simple.wikipedia, same language sister project.
Ah! Something like interwiki extradition. :-)
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yes I know all this. But for example for some issues often the system is clogged
For example all English language projects should be briefed about disruption on each other. That is disruption aside from vandalism.
I guess what I am looking for is an information portal of major cases of disruption on all wikis. Ja.wikipedia will probably be unaware of En.wikipedia issues such as the CAMERA incident.
A mailing list would not do the trick since we are looking at notes rather than discussions. Help me out conceptualize.
-White Cat
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:47 PM, mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
If you want better interwiki communication, then go do it. I can't agree more with that goal, but to make it work, users (esp. admins and CUs) need to go out and do it every day. For the most part, CUs /are/ doing this - that's what our mailing list is for. For admins, there is #wikimedia-admin, which is invite-only, but not hard to find someone to let you in. If you're not on IRC, then there is also drini's daylog (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Drini/daylog) and the vandalism noticeboard ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_reports#Current_cross_wiki_vandali sm).
Perhaps setting up an additional mailing list for admins involved cross-wiki to mirror the IRC channel would be useful? The CUs have both, why not both for admins too? Perhaps it'd be better to have it limited to members of SWMT rather than just admins? That point might need more thought, but I think a mailing list where this kind of info can be shared could well be useful (more useful than #wikimedia-admin).
Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: White Cat [mailto:wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com] Sent: May 6, 2008 1:23 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
Exactly and the local community wasn't completely oblivious to Poetlisters conduct back on English wikipedia. He was carefully watched, tutored and polished to what he is now. His own effort was vital, no doubt, but he wasn't unguided.
What I am suggesting is not an Interwiki Police, I would be the first in line to oppose that. What I am suggesting is better communication between wikis. The arrogant tone between wikis should be abolished.
What I seek is better information sharing between wikis. I should not need to pay attention to individual noticeboards and block logs of every wiki. Intense cases of disruption should be noted in the same site.
For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared among checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to register the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should be prepared for it.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, just yesterday Poetlister was unblocked on en.wikipedia, at least partly based on her long history of good conduct at Wikiquote. One of the canonical ways to get unbanned is to go to another project and behave.
WilyD
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Can't wait for the politics of that one.
Community 1: Block him! UserABC was bad here! Community 2: He's a highly productive user here.
I'm sure we can all imagine how that'd end up.
-Chad
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Look let me give a real-life example. Say you commit a crime in
the US, if
you were to escape to Mexico you would freely roam aaround
because
you have
not done anything wrong there.
Each individual wiki is independent yes, but we need a level of communication among wikis. Like between fr.wikipedia and
fr.wikibooks or
en.wiktionary and simple.wikipedia, same language sister project.
Ah! Something like interwiki extradition. :-)
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
What you describe already goes on with Checkuser-l. For reasons that should be apparent this communication is confidential.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of White Cat Sent: 06 May 2008 06:23 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
Exactly and the local community wasn't completely oblivious to Poetlisters conduct back on English wikipedia. He was carefully watched, tutored and polished to what he is now. His own effort was vital, no doubt, but he wasn't unguided.
What I am suggesting is not an Interwiki Police, I would be the first in line to oppose that. What I am suggesting is better communication between wikis. The arrogant tone between wikis should be abolished.
What I seek is better information sharing between wikis. I should not need to pay attention to individual noticeboards and block logs of every wiki. Intense cases of disruption should be noted in the same site.
For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared among checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to register the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should be prepared for it.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, just yesterday Poetlister was unblocked on en.wikipedia, at least partly based on her long history of good conduct at Wikiquote. One of the canonical ways to get unbanned is to go to another project and behave.
WilyD
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Can't wait for the politics of that one.
Community 1: Block him! UserABC was bad here! Community 2: He's a highly productive user here.
I'm sure we can all imagine how that'd end up.
-Chad
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Look let me give a real-life example. Say you commit a crime in
the US, if
you were to escape to Mexico you would freely roam aaround because
you have
not done anything wrong there.
Each individual wiki is independent yes, but we need a level of communication among wikis. Like between fr.wikipedia and
fr.wikibooks or
en.wiktionary and simple.wikipedia, same language sister project.
Ah! Something like interwiki extradition. :-)
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
White Cat wrote:
Exactly and the local community wasn't completely oblivious to Poetlisters conduct back on English wikipedia. He was carefully watched, tutored and polished to what he is now. His own effort was vital, no doubt, but he wasn't unguided.
What I am suggesting is not an Interwiki Police, I would be the first in line to oppose that. What I am suggesting is better communication between wikis. The arrogant tone between wikis should be abolished.
What evidence do you have of this "arrogant tone" except to the extent that it comes from en:wp? If admins from en:wp want to be believed on sister projects they would do well to abandon their love of kangaroo justice.
What I seek is better information sharing between wikis. I should not need to pay attention to individual noticeboards and block logs of every wiki. Intense cases of disruption should be noted in the same site.
We don't really need that. Why should my approach to a newbie be tainted by such prejudicial material? The ones that are really bad will soon get noticed without the need for such a condescending noticeboard. In my years with Wiktionary and Wikisource I have found timewarping admins to be a bigger problem.
For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared among checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to register the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should be prepared for it.
I have no use for this kind of infectious paranoia.
Ec
On Tuesday 06 May 2008 20:13:26 Ray Saintonge wrote:
For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared among checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to register the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should be prepared for it.
I have no use for this kind of infectious paranoia.
This is our reality. I already have one example: a person with the account A was on tr and az wps. They were banned at tr some time ago, then, after some time at az wp, while having the account B at tr.wp. With somewhat more effective CU organization, account B would be banned at tr.wp at the time when the account A was banned at az.wp. However, account B was in the process of getting admin permissions at tr.wp. And the process of blocking it was very painful for tr.wp community. Instead of having a regular method for dealing with such kind of problems, they needed deux ex machina, some steward who will do one IAR for them.
For those wanting to keep track of Bugzilla/SVN, the relevant bugs are 8710 (originally split the CU logs), 13789 (requesting they be re-merged), and revision 29527.
-Chad
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 06 May 2008 20:13:26 Ray Saintonge wrote:
For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared among checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to register the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should be prepared for it.
I have no use for this kind of infectious paranoia.
This is our reality. I already have one example: a person with the account A was on tr and az wps. They were banned at tr some time ago, then, after some time at az wp, while having the account B at tr.wp. With somewhat more effective CU organization, account B would be banned at tr.wp at the time when the account A was banned at az.wp. However, account B was in the process of getting admin permissions at tr.wp. And the process of blocking it was very painful for tr.wp community. Instead of having a regular method for dealing with such kind of problems, they needed deux ex machina, some steward who will do one IAR for them.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thanks for your information but it doesn't sound an "interwiki" thing at all. It sounds rather trwiki internal issue and that's all.
And I would add using stewards as deus ex machina to judge community issues is a horrible idea, at least for me. Trwiki, in this case, would be better to settle their own arbcom; again it doesn't look like "interwiki" things.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 06 May 2008 20:13:26 Ray Saintonge wrote:
For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared among checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to register the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should be prepared for it.
I have no use for this kind of infectious paranoia.
This is our reality. I already have one example: a person with the account A was on tr and az wps. They were banned at tr some time ago, then, after some time at az wp, while having the account B at tr.wp. With somewhat more effective CU organization, account B would be banned at tr.wp at the time when the account A was banned at az.wp. However, account B was in the process of getting admin permissions at tr.wp. And the process of blocking it was very painful for tr.wp community. Instead of having a regular method for dealing with such kind of problems, they needed deux ex machina, some steward who will do one IAR for them.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your information but it doesn't sound an "interwiki" thing at all. It sounds rather trwiki internal issue and that's all.
And I would add using stewards as deus ex machina to judge community issues is a horrible idea, at least for me. Trwiki, in this case, would be better to settle their own arbcom; again it doesn't look like "interwiki" things.
I want to remember that this thread started because White Cat wanted Jack Merridew blocked *by stewards* in projects where he edited and without obvious (according to several of us who looked) disruption
In his words:
Consider the scenario where a disruptive user is indefinitely blocked on a particular wiki. He decides to have a "fresh start" in causing the same slow-paced disruption on all sister projects one by one...
Yes, someone else pointed that trouble users will eventually prove themselves and get blocked, that's true, nothing new is needed.
Now what is being proposed is a board to track "trouble users" who are not obvious vandals (like those who checkusers track crosswiki), and block them so they can't "escape to Mexico to commit more murders" but just "controversial users". It sounds a bit to me like stalking
1) This is not about the Jack Merridew case. I have got a lot to say about that but I wont as that isn't the scope of this. I have been observing difficulties on interwiki related issues for quite some time. Assuming good faith towards me isn't banned, keep that in mind. 2) Do not quote me without permission. Publishing IRC logs publicaly may get you banned from all Wikimedia channels - or so it says when you join channels. Frankly it is very rude.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your information but it doesn't sound an "interwiki" thing at all. It sounds rather trwiki internal issue and that's all.
And I would add using stewards as deus ex machina to judge community issues is a horrible idea, at least for me. Trwiki, in this case, would be better to settle their own arbcom; again it doesn't look like "interwiki" things.
I want to remember that this thread started because White Cat wanted Jack Merridew blocked *by stewards* in projects where he edited and without obvious (according to several of us who looked) disruption
In his words:
Consider the scenario where a disruptive user is indefinitely blocked on
a
particular wiki. He decides to have a "fresh start" in causing the same slow-paced disruption on all sister projects one by one...
Yes, someone else pointed that trouble users will eventually prove themselves and get blocked, that's true, nothing new is needed.
Now what is being proposed is a board to track "trouble users" who are not obvious vandals (like those who checkusers track crosswiki), and block them so they can't "escape to Mexico to commit more murders" but just "controversial users". It sounds a bit to me like stalking
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:55 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
- Do not quote me without permission. Publishing IRC logs publicaly may get
you banned from all Wikimedia channels - or so it says when you join channels. Frankly it is very rude.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
I want to remember that this thread started because White Cat wanted Jack Merridew blocked *by stewards* in projects where he edited and without obvious (according to several of us who looked) disruption
In his words:
Consider the scenario where a disruptive user is indefinitely blocked on
a
particular wiki. He decides to have a "fresh start" in causing the same slow-paced disruption on all sister projects one by one...
Yes, someone else pointed that trouble users will eventually prove themselves and get blocked, that's true, nothing new is needed.
I'm not publishing logs, dear cat, and I'm allowed to quote, like it or not. That is from this very PUBLIC list, see top of the thread. So, please drop your threats about IRC blocks.
On Thursday 08 May 2008 06:11:31 Aphaia wrote:
Thanks for your information but it doesn't sound an "interwiki" thing at all. It sounds rather trwiki internal issue and that's all.
And I would add using stewards as deus ex machina to judge community issues is a horrible idea, at least for me. Trwiki, in this case, would be better to settle their own arbcom; again it doesn't look like "interwiki" things.
This was and interwiki issue because crosswiki CU action was needed (including CU action at tr.wp by steward because of limited amount of time and long CU procedure at tr.wp).
BTW, Turkic languages are generally mutually understandable; especially Turkish and Azerbaijani. And projects in Turkic languages projects are good example for possible crosswiki block by default: a person which showed disruptive behavior at one of those projects will be disruptive on all other from that language group.
I would also like to see some wikis to implement long term blocks decided by en.wp ArbCom (maybe by other ArbComs, too; but I am introduced only in en.wp ArbCom work). While en.wp ArbCom decisions related to desysoping or operative decisions for some set of articles or similar may be questionable -- I don't have any doubt about their decisions about long term blocks. And it would make dealing with projects disruption easier.
--- On Thu, 5/8/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
From: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008, 3:09 AM On Thursday 08 May 2008 06:11:31 Aphaia wrote:
Thanks for your information but it doesn't sound
an "interwiki" thing
at all. It sounds rather trwiki internal issue and
that's all.
And I would add using stewards as deus ex machina to
judge community
issues is a horrible idea, at least for me. Trwiki, in
this case,
would be better to settle their own arbcom; again it
doesn't look like
"interwiki" things.
This was and interwiki issue because crosswiki CU action was needed (including CU action at tr.wp by steward because of limited amount of time and long CU procedure at tr.wp).
BTW, Turkic languages are generally mutually understandable; especially Turkish and Azerbaijani. And projects in Turkic languages projects are good example for possible crosswiki block by default: a person which showed disruptive behavior at one of those projects will be disruptive on all other from that language group.
I would also like to see some wikis to implement long term blocks decided by en.wp ArbCom (maybe by other ArbComs, too; but I am introduced only in en.wp ArbCom work). While en.wp ArbCom decisions related to desysoping or operative decisions for some set of articles or similar may be questionable -- I don't have any doubt about their decisions about long term blocks. And it would make dealing with projects disruption easier.
There have already been several people in this thread from English non-WP wikis who have said they do not want to implement blocks/bans from en.WP and they have given actual examples showing they would lose valuable contributers. As I haven't said so before let me add my voice to say that I do not think people blocked on en.WP are inherently problems at en.WS. Why are you pushing this?
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
On Thursday 08 May 2008 11:21:33 Birgitte SB wrote:
There have already been several people in this thread from English non-WP wikis who have said they do not want to implement blocks/bans from en.WP and they have given actual examples showing they would lose valuable contributers. As I haven't said so before let me add my voice to say that I do not think people blocked on en.WP are inherently problems at en.WS. Why are you pushing this?
I am not talking about short-term blocks, I am talking about 6 months+ blocks. Also, I am not talking about this as a mandatory solution, but as an opt-in solution. (Note that en.wp is not my home project, too.)
There are a couple of good reasons for that:
- en.wp ArbCom has its own rules and I am sure that it isn't making mistakes about long term blocks.
- Long term blocks are reserved for very disruptive users. I really don't think that someone who was so disruptive at en.wp -- would be more constructive at some other project.
- Small projects (not those maintained by stewards, but those which have a community) usually suffer heavily by users already proved as disruptive at en.wp. (This is especially true for non-English projects.) Usually, the same user will be blocked at other wiki, but in a very painful process for that community.
- If Meta ArbCom becomes reality, I think that it should process all longer blocks made by any other ArbCom and conclude are the reasons good enough for long time block (which means that such user should get Wikimedia-wide block) or a local ArbCom should consider decision once again.
- It is also possible option that en.wp ArbCom gives a suggestion for longer blocks: are they strictly en.wp related or a user is a threat to all WM projects.
With some discussion about this issue, I am sure that we would be able to find a way how to deal better and faster with disruptive users.
IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason to oppose strongly your idea.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I am not talking about short-term blocks, I am talking about 6 months+ blocks. Also, I am not talking about this as a mandatory solution, but as an opt-in solution. (Note that en.wp is not my home project, too.)
There are a couple of good reasons for that:
- en.wp ArbCom has its own rules and I am sure that it isn't making mistakes
about long term blocks.
- Long term blocks are reserved for very disruptive users. I really don't
think that someone who was so disruptive at en.wp -- would be more constructive at some other project.
I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from English Wikipedia Arbcom?
And re: English Wikiquote I sure she was, is and hopefully will be one of the best editors we've ever had.
- Small projects (not those maintained by stewards, but those which have a
community) usually suffer heavily by users already proved as disruptive at en.wp. (This is especially true for non-English projects.) Usually, the same user will be blocked at other wiki, but in a very painful process for that community.
- If Meta ArbCom becomes reality, I think that it should process all longer
blocks made by any other ArbCom and conclude are the reasons good enough for long time block (which means that such user should get Wikimedia-wide block) or a local ArbCom should consider decision once again.
- It is also possible option that en.wp ArbCom gives a suggestion for longer
blocks: are they strictly en.wp related or a user is a threat to all WM projects.
With some discussion about this issue, I am sure that we would be able to find a way how to deal better and faster with disruptive users.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Please consider that Milos is just one voice among many that feel a need for a council that deals with the issues that are currently not getting the attention that they deserve. When some want an Arbcomm that override that deals with cases that deal with individuals, others see a global arbcomm as a body that ensures some harmonisation between the different projects. When NPOV is no longer considered to be exactly that, how do we deal with this. Do we want the board, the organisation to step in or will the projects deal with such issues themselves ??
It is exactly because there is no vision what a council will be doing, that it was proposed to trash out a proposal first. This still needs doing and only then it will become relevant to support or oppose parts of what is proposed or all that is proposed. In my opinion, what the council will in reality do will be different from what we expect at this stage. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason to oppose strongly your idea.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I am not talking about short-term blocks, I am talking about 6 months+
blocks.
Also, I am not talking about this as a mandatory solution, but as an
opt-in
solution. (Note that en.wp is not my home project, too.)
There are a couple of good reasons for that:
- en.wp ArbCom has its own rules and I am sure that it isn't making
mistakes
about long term blocks.
- Long term blocks are reserved for very disruptive users. I really don't
think that someone who was so disruptive at en.wp -- would be more constructive at some other project.
I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from English Wikipedia Arbcom?
And re: English Wikiquote I sure she was, is and hopefully will be one of the best editors we've ever had.
- Small projects (not those maintained by stewards, but those which have
a
community) usually suffer heavily by users already proved as disruptive
at
en.wp. (This is especially true for non-English projects.) Usually, the
same
user will be blocked at other wiki, but in a very painful process for
that
community.
- If Meta ArbCom becomes reality, I think that it should process all
longer
blocks made by any other ArbCom and conclude are the reasons good enough
for
long time block (which means that such user should get Wikimedia-wide
block)
or a local ArbCom should consider decision once again.
- It is also possible option that en.wp ArbCom gives a suggestion for
longer
blocks: are they strictly en.wp related or a user is a threat to all WM projects.
With some discussion about this issue, I am sure that we would be able to
find
a way how to deal better and faster with disruptive users.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Maybe a foundation committee to cut through the bureaucracy when necesary... I do not think this is a task for stewards.
-- White Cat
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Please consider that Milos is just one voice among many that feel a need for a council that deals with the issues that are currently not getting the attention that they deserve. When some want an Arbcomm that override that deals with cases that deal with individuals, others see a global arbcomm as a body that ensures some harmonisation between the different projects. When NPOV is no longer considered to be exactly that, how do we deal with this. Do we want the board, the organisation to step in or will the projects deal with such issues themselves ??
It is exactly because there is no vision what a council will be doing, that it was proposed to trash out a proposal first. This still needs doing and only then it will become relevant to support or oppose parts of what is proposed or all that is proposed. In my opinion, what the council will in reality do will be different from what we expect at this stage. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason to oppose strongly your idea.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I am not talking about short-term blocks, I am talking about 6 months+
blocks.
Also, I am not talking about this as a mandatory solution, but as an
opt-in
solution. (Note that en.wp is not my home project, too.)
There are a couple of good reasons for that:
- en.wp ArbCom has its own rules and I am sure that it isn't making
mistakes
about long term blocks.
- Long term blocks are reserved for very disruptive users. I really
don't
think that someone who was so disruptive at en.wp -- would be more constructive at some other project.
I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from English Wikipedia Arbcom?
And re: English Wikiquote I sure she was, is and hopefully will be one of the best editors we've ever had.
- Small projects (not those maintained by stewards, but those which
have
a
community) usually suffer heavily by users already proved as disruptive
at
en.wp. (This is especially true for non-English projects.) Usually, the
same
user will be blocked at other wiki, but in a very painful process for
that
community.
- If Meta ArbCom becomes reality, I think that it should process all
longer
blocks made by any other ArbCom and conclude are the reasons good
enough
for
long time block (which means that such user should get Wikimedia-wide
block)
or a local ArbCom should consider decision once again.
- It is also possible option that en.wp ArbCom gives a suggestion for
longer
blocks: are they strictly en.wp related or a user is a threat to all WM projects.
With some discussion about this issue, I am sure that we would be able
to
find
a way how to deal better and faster with disruptive users.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
White Cat wrote:
Maybe a foundation committee to cut through the bureaucracy when necesary... I do not think this is a task for stewards.
A committee to cut through bureaucracy? Isn't that an oxymoron?
--Michael Snow
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason to oppose strongly your idea.
May you read my emails again and find where I said so? I proposed forming of Meta ArbCom, as well as I mentioned that VC may act as a *temporary* Meta ArbCom because we need some body to start to deal with sediments of problems before it is too late.
I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from English Wikipedia Arbcom?
If some body/group/community makes some unreasonable decision (en.wp ArbCom is not the first, not the last; jp.wp community decision for your block is much more problematic because it was, AFAIK, *community's* decision, not ArbCom's decision) -- there are ways for working on making them more reasonable. However, without Meta ArbCom and/or VC we don't have a regular method for that.
The other option is to give global power to local ArbComs. If one ArbCom is not reasonable, other ArbComs will notice that...
I will start by highlighting that I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews. This means I am on the CheckUser-l mailing list and have seen the discussion that has privately taken place about a global blocking mechanism.
My understanding of the requested functionality is that it is primarily for the most irritating IP addresses. We're not talking about someone who might reform if they go to another project, we're talking about people who create dozens of socks and take a perverse joy in making people clean up after them. The people who project hop in the hope of vandalising undetected; the really persistent vandals, not the strongly opinionated. We're talking "Willy on Wheels", not "Wendy on Wako".
Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Milos Rancic Sent: 08 May 2008 16:58 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason to oppose strongly your idea.
May you read my emails again and find where I said so? I proposed forming of Meta ArbCom, as well as I mentioned that VC may act as a *temporary* Meta ArbCom because we need some body to start to deal with sediments of problems before it is too late.
I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from English Wikipedia Arbcom?
If some body/group/community makes some unreasonable decision (en.wp ArbCom is not the first, not the last; jp.wp community decision for your block is much more problematic because it was, AFAIK, *community's* decision, not ArbCom's decision) -- there are ways for working on making them more reasonable. However, without Meta ArbCom and/or VC we don't have a regular method for that.
The other option is to give global power to local ArbComs. If one ArbCom is not reasonable, other ArbComs will notice that...
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brian McNeil wrote:
I will start by highlighting that I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews. This means I am on the CheckUser-l mailing list and have seen the discussion that has privately taken place about a global blocking mechanism.
My understanding of the requested functionality is that it is primarily for the most irritating IP addresses. We're not talking about someone who might reform if they go to another project, we're talking about people who create dozens of socks and take a perverse joy in making people clean up after them. The people who project hop in the hope of vandalising undetected; the really persistent vandals, not the strongly opinionated. We're talking "Willy on Wheels", not "Wendy on Wako".
If you build an environment of trust this concept would go through more easily, but the enthusiasm that some have shown for the proposal is worrisome. There is no confidence that everyone advantaged by this tool would use it wisely.
It is one thing to say that the tool would only be used against the most flagrant violators; it is quite another to believe that everyone will so limit himself in using a process which must often be performed in secrecy.
The autonomy of projects is important, and members of projects need to feel that the autonomy will not be compromised by others making decisions without consultation with the members of the affected community.
Ec
You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right?
The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive user.
When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are dealing with.
-- White Cat
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brian McNeil wrote:
I will start by highlighting that I have CheckUser on the English
Wikinews.
This means I am on the CheckUser-l mailing list and have seen the
discussion
that has privately taken place about a global blocking mechanism.
My understanding of the requested functionality is that it is primarily
for
the most irritating IP addresses. We're not talking about someone who
might
reform if they go to another project, we're talking about people who
create
dozens of socks and take a perverse joy in making people clean up after them. The people who project hop in the hope of vandalising undetected;
the
really persistent vandals, not the strongly opinionated. We're talking "Willy on Wheels", not "Wendy on Wako".
If you build an environment of trust this concept would go through more easily, but the enthusiasm that some have shown for the proposal is worrisome. There is no confidence that everyone advantaged by this tool would use it wisely.
It is one thing to say that the tool would only be used against the most flagrant violators; it is quite another to believe that everyone will so limit himself in using a process which must often be performed in secrecy.
The autonomy of projects is important, and members of projects need to feel that the autonomy will not be compromised by others making decisions without consultation with the members of the affected community.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- On Thu, 5/8/08, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
From: White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008, 12:50 PM You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right?
The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive user.
When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are dealing with.
En.WS can figure out if they are disruptive or not without help. "Disruption" is as often as not due to the context of the situation. I don't believe that users are inherently disruptive, but only become disruptive when they are a bad fit with the culture of the wiki. Just because someone cannot handle writing a neutral encyclopedia article on abortion on en.WP does not mean they will cause problems if they come to en.WS and transcribe US court descisions on abortion. The sister projects all have different angles and sometimes a person is just a bad fit for a certain angle. Users should be banned for disruption where they cause problems not where they haven't.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
White Cat wrote:
You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right?
Quite the contrary. While I'm not a great supporter of global blocking in the first place, it is clear that Brian understands the problems. Your excess of enthusiasm for the proposal suggests that with friends like you the proposal needs no enemies
The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive user.
We are not talking about "second" chances but first chances. Assuming good faith includes treating a project newbie on the basis of what he does in a project, not on the basis of his being on somebody's prejudice list. As Birgitte has stated, Wikisource regulars are quite capable of recognizing a disruptive users when they come along. I assure you that those who seek to impose their personal POVs about the rules or import some other project's robotic solutions are far more disruptive than vandals, spammers and trolls.
When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are dealing with. -- White Cat
The local community knows exactly what he is doing by reading his posts in that community's project. If Wikiquote found some reason to ban the user there, that is entirely their business.
Ec
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian McNeil wrote:
I will start by highlighting that I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews.
This means I am on the CheckUser-l mailing list and have seen the discussion
that has privately taken place about a global blocking mechanism.
My understanding of the requested functionality is that it is primarily for
the most irritating IP addresses. We're not talking about someone who might
reform if they go to another project, we're talking about people who create
dozens of socks and take a perverse joy in making people clean up after them. The people who project hop in the hope of vandalising undetected; the
really persistent vandals, not the strongly opinionated. We're talking "Willy on Wheels", not "Wendy on Wako".
If you build an environment of trust this concept would go through more easily, but the enthusiasm that some have shown for the proposal is worrisome. There is no confidence that everyone advantaged by this tool would use it wisely.
It is one thing to say that the tool would only be used against the most flagrant violators; it is quite another to believe that everyone will so limit himself in using a process which must often be performed in secrecy.
The autonomy of projects is important, and members of projects need to feel that the autonomy will not be compromised by others making decisions without consultation with the members of the affected community.
Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 11:18:44 -0700 From: saintonge@telus.net To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
White Cat wrote:
You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right?
Quite the contrary. While I'm not a great supporter of global blocking in the first place, it is clear that Brian understands the problems. Your excess of enthusiasm for the proposal suggests that with friends like you the proposal needs no enemies
The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive user.
We are not talking about "second" chances but first chances. Assuming good faith includes treating a project newbie on the basis of what he does in a project, not on the basis of his being on somebody's prejudice list. As Birgitte has stated, Wikisource regulars are quite capable of recognizing a disruptive users when they come along. I assure you that those who seek to impose their personal POVs about the rules or import some other project's robotic solutions are far more disruptive than vandals, spammers and trolls.
When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are dealing with. -- White Cat
The local community knows exactly what he is doing by reading his posts in that community's project. If Wikiquote found some reason to ban the user there, that is entirely their business.
Ec
_________________________________________________________________ Win Indiana Jones prizes with Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/
2008/5/10 Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk:
Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised.
Most of the discussion I know of happens on checkuser-l, which is of course extremely private. I don't know if a public noticeboard would actually be helpful. The stewards do most of the cross-wiki vandal chasing - stewards, what do you think?
- d.
Naturally. But half the time, when dealing with cross-wiki disruption, we don't need checkuser. It's something basic: the same hoax on pl and en, or the same crankery being pushed by obviously the same peopl on fr and en. Not everyone uses IRC, which seems to be currently the fastest (only?) way to talk to someone from these other projects.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 22:04:56 +0100 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
2008/5/10 Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk:
Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised.
Most of the discussion I know of happens on checkuser-l, which is of course extremely private. I don't know if a public noticeboard would actually be helpful. The stewards do most of the cross-wiki vandal chasing - stewards, what do you think?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_________________________________________________________________ Be a Hero and Win with Iron Man http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000009ukm/direct/01/
2008/5/10 Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk:
From: dgerard@gmail.com
2008/5/10 Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk:
Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised.
Most of the discussion I know of happens on checkuser-l, which is of course extremely private. I don't know if a public noticeboard would actually be helpful. The stewards do most of the cross-wiki vandal chasing - stewards, what do you think?
Naturally. But half the time, when dealing with cross-wiki disruption, we don't need checkuser. It's something basic: the same hoax on pl and en, or the same crankery being pushed by obviously the same peopl on fr and en. Not everyone uses IRC, which seems to be currently the fastest (only?) way to talk to someone from these other projects.
By "I don't know" I mean I really have no idea :-) Might be of benefit.
- d.
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
Naturally. But half the time, when dealing with cross-wiki disruption, we don't need checkuser. It's something basic: the same hoax on pl and en, or the same crankery being pushed by obviously the same peopl on fr and en. Not everyone uses IRC, which seems to be currently the fastest (only?) way to talk to someone from these other projects.
At the risk of stating the obvious, anything but the silliest and ineffectual forms of disruption on projects in different languages requires a good understanding of those languages. For a hoax to be credible it needs to reflect reasonable linguistic sophistication, and an ability to at least mount a coherent early level defence of the hoax. Native English speakers are notorious for their lack of skills in other languages, so if there is going to be any significant disruptive behaviour from any one individual the other language will more likely have been the first target and English the secondary target.
Smaller sister projects in the same language tend not to have the same high profile as the Wikipedia for that language. They mostly fly below the disruptor's radar.
Ec
[Mike Godwin is CC'd on this as I'm sure he simply doesn't have time to follow everything on foundation-l, and I would in this case greatly value his input on my proposal at the end of the email, and the policy it would require to support it.]
As I tried to point out in my earlier message, the issue is predominantly IP addresses, not usernames.
In an attempt to explain without giving privacy policy violating details, we had a persistent vandal on Wikinews who was creating dodgy usernames, getting blocked for vandalism, then coming back when the autoblock on the IP address expired, creating a new user, and starting over. Local administrators DO NOT KNOW THE IP; they just block the name. Where it's one user every three or four days it is not immediately apparent this is the same person.
I was the one who checkusered one name, on Wikinews. I'd gotten suspicious enough to take that decision, if you don't understand how much of a grey area this stuff is you shouldn't be commenting unless it is to ask questions of people who do the job. The Checkuser gives the IP address and from the IP address you can get a list of all usernames. In this case, we had, at the limit of data retention, an "X on Wheels" account, so either Willy on Wheels himself, or a copycat. Every single one of the dozens of accounts had been indefinitely blocked, so this IP address was a pretty permanent home for the vandal. There was no collateral damage in putting in place a long-term block (in this case three months) preventing the IP from editing either logged in or not.
This information was then shared on Checkuser-l, and checkusers on other projects started confirming they had similar issues with the IP address; lots of accounts that had all been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. A general consensus formed to apply a three month block across multiple wikis.
These are the sort of cases that a global block ability would cover, and I would restrict access to such a tool to stewards. For this case we do not know if we got every WMF wiki, and the work... To get wikis where there is nobody with Checkuser you're looking at a steward granting themselves the right, applying the block, and taking the right away from themselves again. This is a VERY time-consuming process.
So what I would propose for global blocking is that stewards have an extra option to block an IP address (*NOT a username*) across all wikis.
The policy and guidelines for use of such a feature are the difficult bit, and what I believe this discussion should be working towards. Yet, they need room for application of common sense. We restrict it to Stewards, the most trusted users. We expect proven (Checkuser confirmed) vandalism on multiple wikis. We expect a stable IP, or a range with little or no collateral damage. What more? Consensus from a number of checkusers on different projects?
Some of the suggestions I've seen in this discussion are unworkable. We promise to keep IP information out of the public eye when you register an account. The ability to access that information is restricted, and rightly so. Checkuser is a delegation of developer power to trusted users. So, we can't run this on meta where everyone and their dog can access it.
Brian McNeil
Probably pointed out already, but there is discussion about global blocking at [[m:Global blocking]]. I don't think this sort of thing (which I don't disagree with) was addressed as a central issue. Perhaps something to bring up there for wider discussion? Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: Brian McNeil [mailto:brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org] Sent: May 14, 2008 5:50 AM To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List' Cc: 'Mike Godwin' Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
[Mike Godwin is CC'd on this as I'm sure he simply doesn't have time to follow everything on foundation-l, and I would in this case greatly value his input on my proposal at the end of the email, and the policy it would require to support it.]
As I tried to point out in my earlier message, the issue is predominantly IP addresses, not usernames.
In an attempt to explain without giving privacy policy violating details, we had a persistent vandal on Wikinews who was creating dodgy usernames, getting blocked for vandalism, then coming back when the autoblock on the IP address expired, creating a new user, and starting over. Local administrators DO NOT KNOW THE IP; they just block the name. Where it's one user every three or four days it is not immediately apparent this is the same person.
I was the one who checkusered one name, on Wikinews. I'd gotten suspicious enough to take that decision, if you don't understand how much of a grey area this stuff is you shouldn't be commenting unless it is to ask questions of people who do the job. The Checkuser gives the IP address and from the IP address you can get a list of all usernames. In this case, we had, at the limit of data retention, an "X on Wheels" account, so either Willy on Wheels himself, or a copycat. Every single one of the dozens of accounts had been indefinitely blocked, so this IP address was a pretty permanent home for the vandal. There was no collateral damage in putting in place a long-term block (in this case three months) preventing the IP from editing either logged in or not.
This information was then shared on Checkuser-l, and checkusers on other projects started confirming they had similar issues with the IP address; lots of accounts that had all been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. A general consensus formed to apply a three month block across multiple wikis.
These are the sort of cases that a global block ability would cover, and I would restrict access to such a tool to stewards. For this case we do not know if we got every WMF wiki, and the work... To get wikis where there is nobody with Checkuser you're looking at a steward granting themselves the right, applying the block, and taking the right away from themselves again. This is a VERY time-consuming process.
So what I would propose for global blocking is that stewards have an extra option to block an IP address (*NOT a username*) across all wikis.
The policy and guidelines for use of such a feature are the difficult bit, and what I believe this discussion should be working towards. Yet, they need room for application of common sense. We restrict it to Stewards, the most trusted users. We expect proven (Checkuser confirmed) vandalism on multiple wikis. We expect a stable IP, or a range with little or no collateral damage. What more? Consensus from a number of checkusers on different projects?
Some of the suggestions I've seen in this discussion are unworkable. We promise to keep IP information out of the public eye when you register an account. The ability to access that information is restricted, and rightly so. Checkuser is a delegation of developer power to trusted users. So, we can't run this on meta where everyone and their dog can access it.
Brian McNeil
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_reports I am not sure if it is exactly what you seek for, but the most similar, I guess.
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 11:18:44 -0700 From: saintonge@telus.net To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
White Cat wrote:
You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right?
Quite the contrary. While I'm not a great supporter of global blocking in the first place, it is clear that Brian understands the problems. Your excess of enthusiasm for the proposal suggests that with friends like you the proposal needs no enemies
The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive user.
We are not talking about "second" chances but first chances. Assuming good faith includes treating a project newbie on the basis of what he does in a project, not on the basis of his being on somebody's prejudice list. As Birgitte has stated, Wikisource regulars are quite capable of recognizing a disruptive users when they come along. I assure you that those who seek to impose their personal POVs about the rules or import some other project's robotic solutions are far more disruptive than vandals, spammers and trolls.
When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are dealing with. -- White Cat
The local community knows exactly what he is doing by reading his posts in that community's project. If Wikiquote found some reason to ban the user there, that is entirely their business.
Ec
Win Indiana Jones prizes with Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason to oppose strongly your idea.
May you read my emails again and find where I said so? I proposed forming of Meta ArbCom, as well as I mentioned that VC may act as a *temporary* Meta ArbCom because we need some body to start to deal with sediments of problems before it is too late.
There is no agreement that Wikicouncil will at any time act as a "temporary Meta Arbcom".Doing so would compromise any value that such a Council may have. It is conceivable that Wikicouncil could participate in establishing such a body, but that task has a fairly low priority in my mind. Once established, the members of such a Meta Arbcom, should not also be members of Wikicouncil.
I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from English Wikipedia Arbcom?
If some body/group/community makes some unreasonable decision (en.wp ArbCom is not the first, not the last; jp.wp community decision for your block is much more problematic because it was, AFAIK, *community's* decision, not ArbCom's decision) -- there are ways for working on making them more reasonable. However, without Meta ArbCom and/or VC we don't have a regular method for that.
The other option is to give global power to local ArbComs. If one ArbCom is not reasonable, other ArbComs will notice that...
One important factor in this is what one considers to be the role of any Arbcom. My view of the Arbcom, based on its earliest incarnations, is that it has some kind of appellate jurisdiction. It does not itself initiate disciplinary action; that remains the role of a project's own community. This has nothing to do with VC.
Ec
What is this tr.wikipedia claim based on? I'd like to hear the logic behind it. After all you would not be making baseless claims, right?
- White Cat
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:11 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your information but it doesn't sound an "interwiki" thing at all. It sounds rather trwiki internal issue and that's all.
And I would add using stewards as deus ex machina to judge community issues is a horrible idea, at least for me. Trwiki, in this case, would be better to settle their own arbcom; again it doesn't look like "interwiki" things.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 06 May 2008 20:13:26 Ray Saintonge wrote:
For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared
among
checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to register the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should
be
prepared for it.
I have no use for this kind of infectious paranoia.
This is our reality. I already have one example: a person with the
account A
was on tr and az wps. They were banned at tr some time ago, then, after
some
time at az wp, while having the account B at tr.wp. With somewhat more effective CU organization, account B would be banned at tr.wp at the
time
when the account A was banned at az.wp. However, account B was in the
process
of getting admin permissions at tr.wp. And the process of blocking it
was
very painful for tr.wp community. Instead of having a regular method for dealing with such kind of problems, they needed deux ex machina, some
steward
who will do one IAR for them.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:58 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
What is this tr.wikipedia claim based on? I'd like to hear the logic behind it. After all you would not be making baseless claims, right?
http://millosh.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/stewards-and-vogons/
Wily D wrote:
Indeed, just yesterday Poetlister was unblocked on en.wikipedia, at least partly based on her long history of good conduct at Wikiquote. One of the canonical ways to get unbanned is to go to another project and behave.
Of course, getting out of the heat, and proving your good faith elsewhere separates them from the really harmful people. The regulars on other projects will be more inclined to treat the person more objectively. I have encountered Poetlister on Wikisource, and had a sharp difference of opinion with her, but even though I disagreed with her, I had no reason to question her motives. The learning curve for people with strong opinions is not an easy one, and those who are too willing to find fault with them would do better putting a small effort into searching for common ground.
If Poetlister's sin was with the use of sockpuppets did anybody begin by approaching her in a respectful manner about this serious sin?
Ec
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Wily D wrote:
Indeed, just yesterday Poetlister was unblocked on en.wikipedia, at least partly based on her long history of good conduct at Wikiquote. One of the canonical ways to get unbanned is to go to another project and behave.
For the record, Poetlister had begun to accumulated her good conduct *before* her banning from English Wikipedia editing.
Of course, getting out of the heat, and proving your good faith elsewhere separates them from the really harmful people. The regulars on other projects will be more inclined to treat the person more objectively. I have encountered Poetlister on Wikisource, and had a sharp difference of opinion with her, but even though I disagreed with her, I had no reason to question her motives. The learning curve for people with strong opinions is not an easy one, and those who are too willing to find fault with them would do better putting a small effort into searching for common ground.
Your opinion is largely overlapped with mine. She has a distinct character; strong and keen sense and preferences, some strong opinion and no person easily to be persuaded. I disagree with her on some points and have no expectations those differences may be dissolved near soon. It doesn't however hinder our cooperations. On the other things, perhaps more than disagreed ones, we agree happily and enjoy working together.
And she is so integrated as admin that she doesn't mind performing the actions she as individual opposes. She keeps articles she had voted for deletion and deleted the one she had voted for keeping, if it was the community consensus. And we English Wikiquotians are sure there was no problematic/puppet-smelling votes when she was the minority in her opinion.
If Poetlister's sin was with the use of sockpuppets did anybody begin by approaching her in a respectful manner about this serious sin?
I don't know if someone approached her, but I am not sure if it is necessary right now. Poetlister herself has denied to be someone's sock, I heard, and she as Wikiquotian is known the editor far from sockpupetting. Now English Wikipedia Arbcom says she agreed not to use open proxies anymore. We need much further than those things?
Cheers,
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
White Cat wrote:
Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being disruptive on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he or she be treated.
I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become the source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
- White Cat
Based upon my own personal experience in dealing with highly disruptive users on Wikipedia that also edited on Wikibooks.... each project certainly has its own personality in terms of encouraging or discouraging disruptive behavior, and how a user acts or is reacted to on one project isn't necessarily the same on another.
In one case that I remember, a fairly active user on both Wikipedia and Wikibooks was permanently blocked on Wikipedia.... where he had been more or less quite cooperative on Wikibooks. I kept close tabs on his account (as an administrator) on Wikibooks, and didn't see any serious problems... intending to leave him alone. Real and positive contributions were made to the Wikibooks project by this user as well. And yes, I did read through the flamefest on Wikipedia that he was involved with.
Unfortunately, one of the Wikimedia board members (I won't name names here as it is buried in the past) decided to permanently block his account on en.wikibooks as well with the only rationale and justification being that he was disruptive on Wikipedia. At the time, I strongly considered reverting the block.... and in hindsight I should have. Frankly in this case I was intimidated due to the fact that it was a board member who performed the block. Certainly no discussion took place within the Wikibooks community on this individual.
I don't know what could have happened had this user been allowed to grown and mature on Wikibooks for awhile, but then again we won't ever know. That is something you have to consider when trying to get vindictive against some users is that they tend to be the kids that they are, and they simply need to grow up. Sometimes getting blocked by one project might wake them up to the fact that they have to play nice with others and try to be much more cooperative on the other projects.
On the other hand, if a systematic pattern of abuse and disruption is occurring on multiple projects, a much more global block might be in order. I have seen vandals get bored with vandalizing Wikipedia with the hope that the other sister projects might not revert their actions so quickly. But then again, they are using throw-away accounts usually. The issue here is about those users who have made some meaningful and useful additions to the projects, but are simultaneously enflaming conversations on talk pages and otherwise being disruptive. Anybody reading this list knows precisely this kind of user.... as I'm sure nearly everybody reading this list has likely even been accused of being such a user at one point or another if you have done any kind of significant impact on any of the projects.
-- Robert Horning
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org