One of the effects of the recent page capitalization issue has been that the notice about this has overwritten direct access from en:wiktionary to the foundation vote pages.
I was only able to find it by rooting around special pages. It would be helpful if the appropriate links were re-established
Ec
On 7/5/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
One of the effects of the recent page capitalization issue has been that the notice about this has overwritten direct access from en:wiktionary to the foundation vote pages.
I was only able to find it by rooting around special pages. It would be helpful if the appropriate links were re-established
You, or any en.wiktionary admin, can add the message at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice
[[Special:Boardvote|vote]] can be used as a link to the local version of the vote page.
Angela
Angela wrote:
On 7/5/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
One of the effects of the recent page capitalization issue has been that the notice about this has overwritten direct access from en:wiktionary to the foundation vote pages.
I was only able to find it by rooting around special pages. It would be helpful if the appropriate links were re-established
You, or any en.wiktionary admin, can add the message at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice
[[Special:Boardvote|vote]] can be used as a link to the local version of the vote page.
Thanks. It was there on the edit page all the time but someone had turned it into a remark.
Ray
There have been slight issues on en.wikinews.org that are quite troubling and need to be addressed.
It seems that one of the admins, Eloquence, has been causing many problems by abusing his admin/sysop rights. He is also, from what I gather, the research director for WMF.
He has now banned other sysops on that wiki, including Nick Gerda (ngerda), uses a bunch of aliases that he has given admin status to, and has been disregarding the wiki process and community.
Please note, I do not do too much work on the wiki itself, but I keep in touch with quite a few people in #wikinews on freenode that have left disgruntled because of what Erik/Eloquence has done, which I believe just isn't right.
Kyle
Kyle Lutze wrote:
There have been slight issues on en.wikinews.org that are quite troubling and need to be addressed.
It seems that one of the admins, Eloquence, has been causing many problems by abusing his admin/sysop rights. He is also, from what I gather, the research director for WMF.
He has now banned other sysops on that wiki, including Nick Gerda (ngerda), uses a bunch of aliases that he has given admin status to, and has been disregarding the wiki process and community.
Please note, I do not do too much work on the wiki itself, but I keep in touch with quite a few people in #wikinews on freenode that have left disgruntled because of what Erik/Eloquence has done, which I believe just isn't right.
Kyle
forgot one of the aliases, Erik/Eloquence/Xirzon are the one's I've been told
Kyle
I'm a nobody at Wikinews, but...
User:Xirzon doesn't exist and User:Erik is not a sysop and has no edits. What aliases is Kyle referring to?
NGerda appears to have been validly blocked after a 3RR rule -- I think he would have been blocked earlier but all the available admins were involved in the dispute.
Perhaps kyle can cite specific examples (with diffs?)?
--User:Chiacomo
On 7/6/05, Kyle Lutze kylelutze@cox.net wrote:
Kyle Lutze wrote:
There have been slight issues on en.wikinews.org that are quite troubling and need to be addressed.
It seems that one of the admins, Eloquence, has been causing many problems by abusing his admin/sysop rights. He is also, from what I gather, the research director for WMF.
He has now banned other sysops on that wiki, including Nick Gerda (ngerda), uses a bunch of aliases that he has given admin status to, and has been disregarding the wiki process and community.
Please note, I do not do too much work on the wiki itself, but I keep in touch with quite a few people in #wikinews on freenode that have left disgruntled because of what Erik/Eloquence has done, which I believe just isn't right.
Kyle
forgot one of the aliases, Erik/Eloquence/Xirzon are the one's I've been told
Kyle _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
bleh, I feel like an idiot now, the four people I'm talking to in private messages about this on irc are adding in details they didn't tell me before :/
let me clarify really fast: Erik is his real name Xirzon is his IRC nick Eloquence is his wikinews name Ida_mayhem is his bot name
sorry I didn't mention that earlier
Ok, I have now been informed that nGerda was blocked validly. I was told he was just blocked and the Erik was doing this improperly. Once I posted this email, I was told otherwise. I feel like an idiot right now, sorry for that :(
As for the specific examples, I'm making those fools dig up evidence now as I'm a tad bit embarrassed that they told me lies in the first place.
Once again, sorry, Kyle
Nathan Reed wrote:
I'm a nobody at Wikinews, but...
User:Xirzon doesn't exist and User:Erik is not a sysop and has no edits. What aliases is Kyle referring to?
NGerda appears to have been validly blocked after a 3RR rule -- I think he would have been blocked earlier but all the available admins were involved in the dispute.
Perhaps kyle can cite specific examples (with diffs?)?
--User:Chiacomo
On 7/6/05, Kyle Lutze kylelutze@cox.net wrote:
Kyle Lutze wrote:
There have been slight issues on en.wikinews.org that are quite troubling and need to be addressed.
It seems that one of the admins, Eloquence, has been causing many problems by abusing his admin/sysop rights. He is also, from what I gather, the research director for WMF.
He has now banned other sysops on that wiki, including Nick Gerda (ngerda), uses a bunch of aliases that he has given admin status to, and has been disregarding the wiki process and community.
Please note, I do not do too much work on the wiki itself, but I keep in touch with quite a few people in #wikinews on freenode that have left disgruntled because of what Erik/Eloquence has done, which I believe just isn't right.
Kyle
forgot one of the aliases, Erik/Eloquence/Xirzon are the one's I've been told
Kyle _______________________________________________
A new parallel wikinews project was started on meta by several wikinewsisies : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Open_English
Anthere
Kyle Lutze a écrit:
bleh, I feel like an idiot now, the four people I'm talking to in private messages about this on irc are adding in details they didn't tell me before :/
let me clarify really fast: Erik is his real name Xirzon is his IRC nick Eloquence is his wikinews name Ida_mayhem is his bot name
sorry I didn't mention that earlier
Ok, I have now been informed that nGerda was blocked validly. I was told he was just blocked and the Erik was doing this improperly. Once I posted this email, I was told otherwise. I feel like an idiot right now, sorry for that :(
As for the specific examples, I'm making those fools dig up evidence now as I'm a tad bit embarrassed that they told me lies in the first place.
Once again, sorry, Kyle
Nathan Reed wrote:
I'm a nobody at Wikinews, but...
User:Xirzon doesn't exist and User:Erik is not a sysop and has no edits. What aliases is Kyle referring to?
NGerda appears to have been validly blocked after a 3RR rule -- I think he would have been blocked earlier but all the available admins were involved in the dispute.
Perhaps kyle can cite specific examples (with diffs?)?
--User:Chiacomo
On 7/6/05, Kyle Lutze kylelutze@cox.net wrote:
Kyle Lutze wrote:
There have been slight issues on en.wikinews.org that are quite troubling and need to be addressed.
It seems that one of the admins, Eloquence, has been causing many problems by abusing his admin/sysop rights. He is also, from what I gather, the research director for WMF.
He has now banned other sysops on that wiki, including Nick Gerda (ngerda), uses a bunch of aliases that he has given admin status to, and has been disregarding the wiki process and community.
Please note, I do not do too much work on the wiki itself, but I keep in touch with quite a few people in #wikinews on freenode that have left disgruntled because of what Erik/Eloquence has done, which I believe just isn't right.
Kyle
forgot one of the aliases, Erik/Eloquence/Xirzon are the one's I've been told
Kyle _______________________________________________
Kyle Lutze:
let me clarify really fast: Erik is his real name Xirzon is his IRC nick Eloquence is his wikinews name Ida_mayhem is his bot name
Hi,
yes, things can be a bit confusing sometimes. I intend to change my username to my real name once we have single login.
Ok, I have now been informed that nGerda was blocked validly.
I'd be happy to post the relevant IRC log for anyone interested. I was actually very reluctant to block Nick, because we get along quite well, and because he has made many good contributions. However, I was the only admin who was not involved in the dispute and who was available at the time. 3RR is documented policy on Wikinews as it is on Wikipedia. I have never blocked a sysop on Wikinews before, as far as I can remember. I have also never created a sock puppet on a Wikimedia wiki, ever.
As for the specific examples, I'm making those fools dig up evidence now as I'm a tad bit embarrassed that they told me lies in the first place.
There is a big brouhaha going on at the moment about Amgine's departure and his plans for a new "Open Wikinews". Those who want to read the whole mess can do it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Open_English http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikinews/Open_English
Meanwhile, I'm inviting an open discussion about the future of the project, which I will announce separately.
Best,
Erik
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Kyle Lutze:
let me clarify really fast: Erik is his real name Xirzon is his IRC nick Eloquence is his wikinews name Ida_mayhem is his bot name
Hi,
yes, things can be a bit confusing sometimes. I intend to change my username to my real name once we have single login.
Ok, I have now been informed that nGerda was blocked validly.
I'd be happy to post the relevant IRC log for anyone interested. I was actually very reluctant to block Nick, because we get along quite well, and because he has made many good contributions. However, I was the only admin who was not involved in the dispute and who was available at the time.
Hi Erik
Could you inform us more on the motive/root of the dispute ? What is a NPOV edit war ?
Ant
Anthere:
Hi Erik
Could you inform us more on the motive/root of the dispute ? What is a NPOV edit war ?
If you are referring to the block, I don't really know much about the dispute, as I was not involved in it. I think it was about a photo of a ship or something. You should probably talk to CraigSpurrier or Pechorin on IRC. Here's the history containing the reverts:
http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Lead_article&action=hi...
Best,
Erik
I chatted with Apple/Kyle for a few moments on IRC and it appears he was goaded into posting by NGerda (who has been "helping him out with some stuff"). Kyle was led to believe the block might have been handled in the wrong way and in his words, "got kinda pissed and just started writing an email". He's acknowledged that the post might have better been directed to wikinews-l -- if it should have been sent at all.
I think we can expect some clarification tomorrow.
-Chiacomo
On 7/6/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Kyle Lutze:
let me clarify really fast: Erik is his real name Xirzon is his IRC nick Eloquence is his wikinews name Ida_mayhem is his bot name
Hi,
yes, things can be a bit confusing sometimes. I intend to change my username to my real name once we have single login.
Ok, I have now been informed that nGerda was blocked validly.
I'd be happy to post the relevant IRC log for anyone interested. I was actually very reluctant to block Nick, because we get along quite well, and because he has made many good contributions. However, I was the only admin who was not involved in the dispute and who was available at the time. 3RR is documented policy on Wikinews as it is on Wikipedia. I have never blocked a sysop on Wikinews before, as far as I can remember. I have also never created a sock puppet on a Wikimedia wiki, ever.
As for the specific examples, I'm making those fools dig up evidence now as I'm a tad bit embarrassed that they told me lies in the first place.
There is a big brouhaha going on at the moment about Amgine's departure and his plans for a new "Open Wikinews". Those who want to read the whole mess can do it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Open_English http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikinews/Open_English
Meanwhile, I'm inviting an open discussion about the future of the project, which I will announce separately.
Best,
Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan Reed wrote:
I chatted with Apple/Kyle for a few moments on IRC and it appears he was goaded into posting by NGerda (who has been "helping him out with some stuff"). Kyle was led to believe the block might have been handled in the wrong way and in his words, "got kinda pissed and just started writing an email". He's acknowledged that the post might have better been directed to wikinews-l -- if it should have been sent at all.
I think we can expect some clarification tomorrow.
-Chiacomo
Ok, to clarify now that I have some time. It wasn't NGerda who told me, it was Amgine. I would post the logs, but I'm against posting private logs in general.
So basically Amgine told me that he felt that Erik keeps disregarding the community and wiki process, and that everybody has to keep cleaning up after him; Not that he was abusing his powers.
I talked to NGerda on the phone today, he isn't pissed too much, I guess it was something along the lines of NGerda thought one story should be covered the most while five other dudes thought the london story should be the main covered article, or something like that.
From there, NGerda got a temporary ban for 3rr, but made a good point.
Whoever the other five people are also should've been banned as they could technically be considered one body that had also commited the "horrendious(sp?)" crime of 3rr.
On 7/6/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Kyle Lutze:
let me clarify really fast: Erik is his real name Xirzon is his IRC nick Eloquence is his wikinews name Ida_mayhem is his bot name
Hi,
yes, things can be a bit confusing sometimes. I intend to change my username to my real name once we have single login.
Ok, I have now been informed that nGerda was blocked validly.
I'd be happy to post the relevant IRC log for anyone interested. I was actually very reluctant to block Nick, because we get along quite well, and because he has made many good contributions. However, I was the only admin who was not involved in the dispute and who was available at the time. 3RR is documented policy on Wikinews as it is on Wikipedia. I have never blocked a sysop on Wikinews before, as far as I can remember. I have also never created a sock puppet on a Wikimedia wiki, ever.
As for the specific examples, I'm making those fools dig up evidence now as I'm a tad bit embarrassed that they told me lies in the first place.
There is a big brouhaha going on at the moment about Amgine's departure and his plans for a new "Open Wikinews". Those who want to read the whole mess can do it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Open_English http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikinews/Open_English
Meanwhile, I'm inviting an open discussion about the future of the project, which I will announce separately.
Best,
Erik
Aphaia wrote:
On 7/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Ilya Haykinson wrote:
Ok, I'm really confused. There has indeed been some heated editing on Wikinews which caused the departure of one admin (who I hope will come back someday) and the temporary banning of another for violating the 3RR -- not an unusual thing.
Why is 3RR regarded as bannable policy on Wikinews? It seems unlikely to be needed at this early stage, and certainly if it was adopted incautiously from English Wikipedia, this is a decision which should be reconsidered. In my opinion, it depends, and if Wikinews is suffered already by edit wars (I don't know if it would be or not), it would be helpful. But we could go in a softer way prausibly.
An editor has proposed recently on Wikqiuote a modified version of 3RR, instead of blocking two involved party, protect the page in question, and invite editors to its talk. After a while, a sysop unprotect the page, and if then someone try to ignore on-going discussion and make an edit not reflecting the latest discussion intentionally, (except a genuine newcomer), then blocking his or her account cumlatively (first 24 hours, then 48 hours ...)
I like the protect it idea.
Kyle
Ok, I'm really confused. There has indeed been some heated editing on Wikinews which caused the departure of one admin (who I hope will come back someday) and the temporary banning of another for violating the 3RR -- not an unusual thing.
But I think that this message makes no sense, as I think there has not been any abuse by Erik.
If there are any problems on Wikinews, I think that they stem from failures to communicate, and from an overindulgence in talking about process versus writing more news articles. Those are correctable and are being worked on: I doubt that Wikipedia grew up without tensions between editors.
The majority of the message here is unsubstantiated, specifically "many problems by abusing sysop rights", nor the bunch of aliases, nor the admin'ed sysops. I've definitely not had the chance to find a sockpuppet admin that Kyle is referring to.
-ilya haykinson en:wikinews sysop & bureaucrat
On 7/5/05, Kyle Lutze kylelutze@cox.net wrote:
Kyle Lutze wrote:
There have been slight issues on en.wikinews.org that are quite troubling and need to be addressed.
It seems that one of the admins, Eloquence, has been causing many problems by abusing his admin/sysop rights. He is also, from what I gather, the research director for WMF.
He has now banned other sysops on that wiki, including Nick Gerda (ngerda), uses a bunch of aliases that he has given admin status to, and has been disregarding the wiki process and community.
Please note, I do not do too much work on the wiki itself, but I keep in touch with quite a few people in #wikinews on freenode that have left disgruntled because of what Erik/Eloquence has done, which I believe just isn't right.
Kyle
forgot one of the aliases, Erik/Eloquence/Xirzon are the one's I've been told
Kyle _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ilya Haykinson wrote:
Ok, I'm really confused. There has indeed been some heated editing on Wikinews which caused the departure of one admin (who I hope will come back someday) and the temporary banning of another for violating the 3RR -- not an unusual thing.
Why is 3RR regarded as bannable policy on Wikinews? It seems unlikely to be needed at this early stage, and certainly if it was adopted incautiously from English Wikipedia, this is a decision which should be reconsidered.
Blocking an admin at such an early stage, and for such a trivial matter, strikes me as something which should be generally avoided.
Kyle had previously written:
Erik/Eloquence/Xirzon are the one's I've been told
It is confusing and unfortunate that Erik uses different names in different places, but it has been so for a long time, and is not malicious at all.
Erik - in real life Eloquence - on the wikis Xirzon - on irc
I don't think this is a big problem, although as I say, it is confusing and unfortunate.
--Jimbo
On 7/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Ilya Haykinson wrote:
Ok, I'm really confused. There has indeed been some heated editing on Wikinews which caused the departure of one admin (who I hope will come back someday) and the temporary banning of another for violating the 3RR -- not an unusual thing.
Why is 3RR regarded as bannable policy on Wikinews? It seems unlikely to be needed at this early stage, and certainly if it was adopted incautiously from English Wikipedia, this is a decision which should be reconsidered.
In my opinion, it depends, and if Wikinews is suffered already by edit wars (I don't know if it would be or not), it would be helpful. But we could go in a softer way prausibly.
An editor has proposed recently on Wikqiuote a modified version of 3RR, instead of blocking two involved party, protect the page in question, and invite editors to its talk. After a while, a sysop unprotect the page, and if then someone try to ignore on-going discussion and make an edit not reflecting the latest discussion intentionally, (except a genuine newcomer), then blocking his or her account cumlatively (first 24 hours, then 48 hours ...)
It is not the official policy yet, and still its early and experimental stage, but seems to work fairly. Just for your information.
Aphaia wrote:
In my opinion, it depends, and if Wikinews is suffered already by edit wars (I don't know if it would be or not), it would be helpful. But we could go in a softer way prausibly.
An editor has proposed recently on Wikqiuote a modified version of 3RR, instead of blocking two involved party, protect the page in question, and invite editors to its talk. After a while, a sysop unprotect the page, and if then someone try to ignore on-going discussion and make an edit not reflecting the latest discussion intentionally, (except a genuine newcomer), then blocking his or her account cumlatively (first 24 hours, then 48 hours ...)
It is not the official policy yet, and still its early and experimental stage, but seems to work fairly. Just for your information.
Just curious: Edit-wars on wikiquote happen about which subjects? I can hardly imagine an edit-war on wikiquote.
greetings, elian
On 7/7/05, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
Just curious: Edit-wars on wikiquote happen about which subjects? I can hardly imagine an edit-war on wikiquote.
Often the same topics as Wikipedia - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion
Most problems seem to be with newcomers removing critical quotes about people or things they don't like to see criticised rather than with long term users edit warring, but occasionally there are POV issues similar to those Wikipedia has.
Angela.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ilya Haykinson wrote:
Ok, I'm really confused. There has indeed been some heated editing on Wikinews which caused the departure of one admin (who I hope will come back someday) and the temporary banning of another for violating the 3RR -- not an unusual thing.
Why is 3RR regarded as bannable policy on Wikinews? It seems unlikely to be needed at this early stage, and certainly if it was adopted incautiously from English Wikipedia, this is a decision which should be reconsidered.
I'm happy to say that after going through our deletion process 3RR was deleted from Wiktionary. During the discussion there was only one incident mentioned where it might have been a factor, and on investigation even that one turned out to be factually doubtful.
The underlying issue is not so much the specifics of the 3RR, as it is a question of how policies become policies. Some time ago someone acting in perfectly good faith managed to import the policy from Wikipedia. He evidently was acting pro-actively to solve what he felt could be an eventual problem. There was no current problem. Their might not be such a problem for a long time.
A rule proposal for a non-eixting problem is not likely to get much attention, but if it sits there unquestioned for a year or more until a relevant occasion arises it will be assumed that it is official policy just because it has never been questioned. Literalists, who perhaps were not even there when the proposal was first made, then try to enforce the rule; that's when the arguments start.
To be workable, rules must reflect a community, not the other way around. Wikipedia, as the senior project, has developed many rules which (presumably ;-) ) work there. There is no doubt a story there about each one, but the fact that the rule had an 80% vote in favour on Wikipedia is not a convincing argument when trying to adopt the same rule on Wikinews or Wiktionary. If anything it will breed resentment and crieas of cabalistic behaviour.
There has to be an art to acting boldly. Acting boldly and decisively is often a necessity to prevent a project from descending into paralysis, but the person doing so better have a damn good reason for doing it if challenged. At least some elements of it should be reversible if the challenge turns out to have some validity. Acting boldly does not mean acting hastily, but acting only after others have had an opportunity to be heard.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Some time ago someone acting in perfectly good faith managed to import the policy from Wikipedia. He evidently was acting pro-actively to solve what he felt could be an eventual problem. There was no current problem. [There] might not be such a problem for a long time.
I'm happy to hear about all of this. A good faith effort to improve by adding a rule, a good faith community process to eliminate the rule where is it not needed.
I think one of the clever or lucky innovations of our community is the very early decision to not make up rules to solve problems that might happen, but rather to wait until a problem is really here, and then cautiously look for a way to fix it. This has preserved the open character of our community in a nice way.
To be workable, rules must reflect a community, not the other way around.
Yes!
Wikipedia, as the senior project, has developed many rules which (presumably ;-) ) work there.
I especially agree with the "presumably ;-)" parenthetical. I think most of the rules of en.wikipedia are fine, but some are better than others, and all deserve to be studied again from time to time.
There has to be an art to acting boldly.
This is beautiful.
--Jimbo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org