An addition to the post of Finne Boonen:
For record: to see the complete picture, add:
Chronologically: - jan 3d: - Gebruiker:Wearth unblocks 47 blocked users (3 registered users and 44 anonymous IP's) which were blocked before by other sysops, due to repeated vandalism. Wearth's Description in the block-log: "omdat ik het gezanik over machtsmisbruik zat ben en de gemeenschap niets doet om vooruit te komen mbt blokkeren en alleen zanikt over illegale blokkades deblokkeer ik iedereen. kan de gemeenschap zelf ondervinden of ze alle trollen wil" (which roughy translates to: because I am fed up with the whining about misuse of power and because the community does not want to do anything to move forward on the issue of blocking and only whines about illegal blockades I deblock everyone. Now the community can find out if it wants all trolls). see: http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal%3ALog&type=block&...
Until now, Wearth did not make any statements or explanations about this action AFAIK.
Tjipke de Vries (Tdevries on nl:, en:, de:, commons:, meta:)
As further addition:
1. Waerth's warning to people who had voted in favor of the proposal to lengthen discussion time consisted of the standard warning template for vandals, with the following text added (translation mine):
Through your behavior in this poll you show that you don't give a damn about wikipedia. And see wikipedia as something it is not. Namely a discussion forum. This kind of actions is dangerous for the future of wikipedia and contrary to her purposes and borders to trolling behaviour: you deliberately block progress on a subject about which has been discussed over a year. If you see wikipedia as a discussion forum and keep frustrating each form of progress on wikipedia I will have to ask you friendly to look for another place like one of the millions of discussion forums on the net. If you are a moderator then you have acted so much against all regulations and guidelines that I will start a desysopping procedure, which hereby has been announced the necessary 48 houirs in advance. Removing this warning will lead to a blocking for an indetermined period of time.
2. Singlehandedly deblocking is apparently considered a quite serious crime for Dutch sysops. I do not agree, which is one of the reasons I did not want to remain a sysop (others are serious disagreements on blocking length, requirements and statements which seem to indicate that sysops are worth more than other users and my own inflammability)
Nevertheless, I think there IS a crisis on the Dutch Wikipedia that might require intervention. Only 2 months ago Londenp and I both resigned after a heavy conflict on the subject of unblocking. And Errabee has announced a wish to resign too. Adding all together, even with Waerth and Errabee still be sysops, the Dutch Wikipedia has less than 1/10 the number of sysops from the English one (64 against 792) but half as many who resigned or were forced to step down (12 against 23).
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Tjipke de Vries wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
Nevertheless, I think there IS a crisis on the Dutch Wikipedia that might require intervention.
What kind of intervention do you suggest?
Tjipke de Vries
I do not think Andre has an answer to that. Neither have I. The situation is deadlocked at the moment. People are urging me by mail to stay. Another group would not have that. No one knows what to do. At the moment we have all lost.
Waerth/Walter
Hoi, The situation is deadlocked when everything centers around single persons. When you want to put it like that there is a crisis, it is however a personal crisis staged for everyone to see.
I do subscribe to the idea that it would be best for you to stay if you want to. You have been a valuable contributor and you have been a valuable vandalfighter. However, given the way you threw your weight around, I do think it best when you do not force issues in the way you have done. It is a distraction and it only makes the things you want to achieve become secondary issues. It is telling that the things that you want to see happen BECAME secondary because of the strategies that you employ. This is not the first time that it happened.
You mean well, but the way you do things is detrimental for long term cooperation.
Thanks, GerardM
On 1/18/06, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Tjipke de Vries wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
Nevertheless, I think there IS a crisis on the Dutch Wikipedia that might require intervention.
What kind of intervention do you suggest?
Tjipke de Vries
I do not think Andre has an answer to that. Neither have I. The situation is deadlocked at the moment. People are urging me by mail to stay. Another group would not have that. No one knows what to do. At the moment we have all lost.
Waerth/Walter _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
2006/1/18, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net:
I do not think Andre has an answer to that. Neither have I. The situation is deadlocked at the moment. People are urging me by mail to stay. Another group would not have that. No one knows what to do. At the moment we have all lost.
Indeed, I do not know. I do however think that it would be good to look beyond the specifics of this specific case and the underlying issues. And perhaps hear something from elsewhere about whether the same problems exist there, and if not, why not, or why do they not have the consequences of people being de-sysopped, asking for their own de-sysopping and leaving the Wikipedia?
* What is the policy on (for example) blocking, and how is it decided? That is, when and by whom is it decided that certain behavior is enough to block a user or an IP, when and by whom is it decided how long, and when and by whom is it decided to remove such a block? * How is such policy decided? If there is a vote, who starts the vote and at what point? If things work with consensus, how is consensus reached and who decides when that it has been reached? What happens when the same policy is interpreted differently by different people? What happens when large groups of editors cannot come to a consensus? * There's many people who have a great love for Wikipedia. That sounds good, but I have found that it often is a major source of friction as well. What doe you do when two such people have precisely opposite views on what is desirable and what is disastrous for Wikipedia? How do you stop them from destroying their own and each other's pleasure? * What do you do with problem users? How do you stop them from destroying the fun for everyone or specific targets? And if you deal with them, how is it decided that they are? * How do you avoid Wikipedia becoming constant fighting, about issues and/or about people?
I'm sure there's other Wikipedias which have had problems like the ones the Dutch are facing now. But I doubt that they have it with this frequency. It's not the first time things like this happen (nor is it the first time Waerth is involved). And that's why I think there's something wrong. I think that every Wikipedia has its trolls, and every Wikipedia has its users like Waerth and me, well-meaning but hot-headed. But why then, is it starting to get so common on nl: for these vulcanoes to erupt so violently?
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org