What is the policy on other Wikipedias concerning unblocking users. In particular, does a sysop have the right to unblock an IP another sysop blocked, if he thinks the block was unreasonably long?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
On English Wikipedia, this often happens. It's not a matter of "right" but at the admin level, unless it's an arbcomm decree, it's done in a wiki-like manner.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 11/2/05, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
What is the policy on other Wikipedias concerning unblocking users. In particular, does a sysop have the right to unblock an IP another sysop blocked, if he thinks the block was unreasonably long?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
2005/11/2, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com:
On English Wikipedia, this often happens. It's not a matter of "right" but at the admin level, unless it's an arbcomm decree, it's done in a wiki-like manner.
What is a 'wiki-like manner' in this context?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
On 11/2/05, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2005/11/2, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com:
On English Wikipedia, this often happens. It's not a matter of "right" but at the admin level, unless it's an arbcomm decree, it's done in a wiki-like manner.
What is a 'wiki-like manner' in this context?
Last person wins. :)
-Andrew
Andre Engels wrote:
2005/11/2, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com:
On English Wikipedia, this often happens. It's not a matter of "right" but at the admin level, unless it's an arbcomm decree, it's done in a wiki-like manner.
What is a 'wiki-like manner' in this context?
What one person does, another can change. Through a serious of additions and corrections by numerous parties over time, the work progresses.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
This is particularly important in the case of disruptive users who an administrator has blocked for a long period of time, perhaps indefinitely. Any administrator who feels it is appropriate can unblock them, but if no one out of hundreds of administrators is willing to, perhaps it is best to leave it in place.
The downside is that some of those blocked don't know how to ask to be unblocked as perhaps they would be unblocked if they knew better who to appeal to.
Fred
On Nov 1, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Andrew Lih wrote:
On English Wikipedia, this often happens. It's not a matter of "right" but at the admin level, unless it's an arbcomm decree, it's done in a wiki-like manner.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 11/2/05, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
What is the policy on other Wikipedias concerning unblocking users. In particular, does a sysop have the right to unblock an IP another sysop blocked, if he thinks the block was unreasonably long?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The problem seems to lie in smaller, more authoritarian communities.
Any Wiki could turn into a dictatorship with the policy we currently have in place. The bureaucrats get to make all of the decisions. Of course, they can be voted out, but I don't think it's likely that people would attempt to organise a vote against someone who has probably already scared them away.
Something of this sort seems to've happened at cz.wiki. There was a rift. Some admins wanted to unblock one guy, but the bureaucrat didn't like him.
Thus it seems to me that every Wiki should have two or more bureaucrats.
Mark
On 02/11/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This is particularly important in the case of disruptive users who an administrator has blocked for a long period of time, perhaps indefinitely. Any administrator who feels it is appropriate can unblock them, but if no one out of hundreds of administrators is willing to, perhaps it is best to leave it in place.
The downside is that some of those blocked don't know how to ask to be unblocked as perhaps they would be unblocked if they knew better who to appeal to.
Fred
On Nov 1, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Andrew Lih wrote:
On English Wikipedia, this often happens. It's not a matter of "right" but at the admin level, unless it's an arbcomm decree, it's done in a wiki-like manner.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 11/2/05, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
What is the policy on other Wikipedias concerning unblocking users. In particular, does a sysop have the right to unblock an IP another sysop blocked, if he thinks the block was unreasonably long?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para ingresar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.
Ahh, and, to ward off any flamewars:
I don't claim to know the true nature of the conflict on the Czech Wikipedia. Who was doing what, I only have a very vague idea of. Frankly, I don't want to know anymore either, because I might get involved and well that would just ruin my week.
Mark
On 02/11/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
The problem seems to lie in smaller, more authoritarian communities.
Any Wiki could turn into a dictatorship with the policy we currently have in place. The bureaucrats get to make all of the decisions. Of course, they can be voted out, but I don't think it's likely that people would attempt to organise a vote against someone who has probably already scared them away.
Something of this sort seems to've happened at cz.wiki. There was a rift. Some admins wanted to unblock one guy, but the bureaucrat didn't like him.
Thus it seems to me that every Wiki should have two or more bureaucrats.
Mark
On 02/11/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This is particularly important in the case of disruptive users who an administrator has blocked for a long period of time, perhaps indefinitely. Any administrator who feels it is appropriate can unblock them, but if no one out of hundreds of administrators is willing to, perhaps it is best to leave it in place.
The downside is that some of those blocked don't know how to ask to be unblocked as perhaps they would be unblocked if they knew better who to appeal to.
Fred
On Nov 1, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Andrew Lih wrote:
On English Wikipedia, this often happens. It's not a matter of "right" but at the admin level, unless it's an arbcomm decree, it's done in a wiki-like manner.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 11/2/05, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
What is the policy on other Wikipedias concerning unblocking users. In particular, does a sysop have the right to unblock an IP another sysop blocked, if he thinks the block was unreasonably long?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para ingresar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para ingresar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.
On 11/2/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Ahh, and, to ward off any flamewars:
I don't claim to know the true nature of the conflict on the Czech Wikipedia. Who was doing what, I only have a very vague idea of. Frankly, I don't want to know anymore either, because I might get involved and well that would just ruin my week.
Then I'd like to ask you not to comment on the matter (no offense intended!). I might explain various mistakes in your message, but, as you said, nobody is probably interested in that specific case.
So just generally: I agree that there should be no strict requirement that an admin must ask the blocking admin to unblock a user, although as a matter of politeness you should consider at least informing that admin about your action. And, of course, in case of a controversial block you should make yourself sure you have enough information for the unblocking.
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 07:31:08 -0700 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
There was a rift. Some admins wanted to unblock one guy, but the bureaucrat didn't like him.
Thus it seems to me that every Wiki should have two or more bureaucrats.
Pardon me but what are the rights of a bureaucrat that would scare off admins, or would do anything to those who oppose the bureaucrat's opinion?
As far as I know a b. can give sysop rights. This should be based on community will (preferably a vote). But apart from that I don't see any b. right to be a possible harm or oppression...
So why bureaucrats? I thought they are not even admins... (no admin rights)
grin
Peter Gervai wrote:
Pardon me but what are the rights of a bureaucrat that would scare off admins, or would do anything to those who oppose the bureaucrat's opinion?
As far as I know a b. can give sysop rights. This should be based on community will (preferably a vote). But apart from that I don't see any b. right to be a possible harm or oppression...
So why bureaucrats? I thought they are not even admins... (no admin rights)
grin
In theory that might be true that bureaucrats don't have to be admins but in practice I have never heard of one that wasn't already an admin.
-Jtkiefer
2005/11/3, Jtkiefer jtkiefer@wordzen.net:
In theory that might be true that bureaucrats don't have to be admins but in practice I have never heard of one that wasn't already an admin.
I have been in that position for a while, having as a steward de-admined myself on nl: after some fight or another (how many fights have I been in on this project? too many to count..), but not taking away my bureaucratship. I have not used it in the meantime, though, and could have used my stewardship instead if I had wanted to anyway. Recently (yesterday in fact) I put down my adminship again, but this time I also destroyed my bureaucratship.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Recently (yesterday in fact) I put down my adminship again, but this time I also destroyed my bureaucratship.
O common Andre .......... I do not know what it is about as I am happily obliviant of what is happening on nl.wiki ..... (I finally am swamped in work again, I was waiting for that since the Tsunami hit Thailand last year and am working away my debts. So I haven't done anything on wiki for weeks now) ..... bit we do need you. And I am sure you will be missed even though people disagree with you sometimes. People disagreeing with you do not make you need to stand down as an admin. Disagreement is healthy from time to time.
Waerth/Walter
2005/11/4, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net:
O common Andre .......... I do not know what it is about as I am happily obliviant of what is happening on nl.wiki ..... (I finally am swamped in work again, I was waiting for that since the Tsunami hit Thailand last year and am working away my debts. So I haven't done anything on wiki for weeks now) ..... bit we do need you. And I am sure you will be missed even though people disagree with you sometimes. People disagreeing with you do not make you need to stand down as an admin. Disagreement is healthy from time to time.
Well, the point I was bringing forward in this question was one of them - one of the other admins was vehemently opposed to unblocking someone that another admin had blocked. Another point of discussion was the long time blocking of vandals, where I was of the opinion that one should only block long time if there is repeated vandalism by apparently the same person, whereas others were of the opinion that one can also block long time if there is repeated vandalism by possibly different people from the same IP address.
Considering that, * I seem to be in the minority position at least at the second point * I misbehaved in the discussion * The person opposing me had already been moved to de-admin because of the discussion * There were remarks in the discussion that implied that admins still are considered something 'special' by some admins * This was giving me a lot of wikistress at a time I could least use it (I just started a job),
I decided to de-admin myself.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Mark Williamson wrote:
The problem seems to lie in smaller, more authoritarian communities.
Any Wiki could turn into a dictatorship with the policy we currently have in place. The bureaucrats get to make all of the decisions. Of course, they can be voted out, but I don't think it's likely that people would attempt to organise a vote against someone who has probably already scared them away.
The important thing is to find some sort of balance. A bureaucrat does need the freedom to make decisions and act, often unilaterally, on them. He needs to pay attention to his community and use that to guide his actions. There will nevertheless be times when he will act in a way contrary to the community's wishes. That is not inherently wrong, but the bureaucrat proceeds at his own peril. If he overuses that power he will face repeated complaints, and in extreme situations a putsch. Occassional complaints go with the territory. To a certain extent I think that communities appreciate a bureaucrat who can be fair in his decisiveness, and who can take some conflicted issues in a particular direction just to be done with it.
Thus it seems to me that every Wiki should have two or more bureaucrats.
Sometimes, but that is the wrong reason for a second bureaucrat. We don't want the situation of a project with two bureaucrats that are constantly in opposition to each other. As long as a bureaucrat's duties are very light the only reason for a second bureaucrat is to have someone available during extended absences.
Ec
We have had the similar kind of discussion at svwiki, where an obviously not rightous (obvious to most of us, at least) block was applied and re-applied three times by one particular admin, and lifted three times by three different admins. Some peoples main concern, and these were people I highly respect, was that the "taboo" of lifting blocks applied by other admins would now be gone. While I saw that as something healthy, others did not and pointed out how good some trolls are at manipulating the community making others believe they have been wronged - removing of this "taboo" would make troll control more difficult. While I can understand that standpoint, I don't believe this can be a healthy position in the long run.
/Habj
On 11/3/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
The problem seems to lie in smaller, more authoritarian communities.
Any Wiki could turn into a dictatorship with the policy we currently have in place. The bureaucrats get to make all of the decisions. Of course, they can be voted out, but I don't think it's likely that people would attempt to organise a vote against someone who has probably already scared them away.
The important thing is to find some sort of balance. A bureaucrat does need the freedom to make decisions and act, often unilaterally, on them. He needs to pay attention to his community and use that to guide his actions. There will nevertheless be times when he will act in a way contrary to the community's wishes. That is not inherently wrong, but the bureaucrat proceeds at his own peril. If he overuses that power he will face repeated complaints, and in extreme situations a putsch. Occassional complaints go with the territory. To a certain extent I think that communities appreciate a bureaucrat who can be fair in his decisiveness, and who can take some conflicted issues in a particular direction just to be done with it.
Thus it seems to me that every Wiki should have two or more bureaucrats.
Sometimes, but that is the wrong reason for a second bureaucrat. We don't want the situation of a project with two bureaucrats that are constantly in opposition to each other. As long as a bureaucrat's duties are very light the only reason for a second bureaucrat is to have someone available during extended absences.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Ray Saintonge schreef:
The important thing is to find some sort of balance. A bureaucrat does need the freedom to make decisions and act, often unilaterally, on
A bureaucrat does need the freedom to make decisions and act, often unilaterally, on them. He needs to pay attention to his community and use that to guide his actions. There will nevertheless be times when he will act in a way contrary to the community's wishes. That is not inherently wrong, but the bureaucrat proceeds at his own peril.
I do not understand. Are you talking about Wikipedia-bureaucrats?
A bureaucrat is only a sysop who can make other sysops and other bureaucrats. The can not even revoke the sysop-powers.
What has being a bureaucrat to do whit having "power"?
Besides on a wiki where there totally no law and order an bureaucrat is not allowed to grant sysop rights to a user with authorisation. For all other situations the fact of a user is a bureaucrat is irrelevant.
On 11/2/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This is particularly important in the case of disruptive users who an administrator has blocked for a long period of time, perhaps indefinitely. Any administrator who feels it is appropriate can unblock them, but if no one out of hundreds of administrators is willing to, perhaps it is best to leave it in place.
The downside is that some of those blocked don't know how to ask to be unblocked as perhaps they would be unblocked if they knew better who to appeal to.
Fred
It is important for administrators to both review each other and be open to criticism.
Generally, I stepped aside and encouraged the other admin to revise my decision when there is a difference of opinion. Admins who can't tolerate to be reviewed or criticised maybe shouldn't be an admins.
What really irritates me is when an admin modifies another admin's block without discussion.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org