Anthere wrote:
Mulot was banned for a week because she tried to propose another angle of view, an historical timeline, that could enrich the wiki.
Who did the ban?
Another user was banned along because he "made the mistake" to state of few truths.
Well, this is a bit vague, but I'm listening. This doesn't sound like a good reason to ban someone.
I have no problem with your decision of being the only one with the right to ban logged-in user, but
Well, that's not exactly what I've said. :-) I think that being logged in or not logged in is really not important. What's important is that none of us (even me) ban anyone for anything other than outright vandalism, without a long discussion first. And after that discussion, it falls on me to make a final decision.
- people can still delete pages of those they don't
agree with, instead of talking
This is by using a destructive delete? No one is supposed to use a destructive delete in an argument. If they blank the page, well, that's rude, but the other person can restore it from the history. Episodes like this are unpleasant, but tend to end fairly quickly, and both sides are "equal" in the fight.
- I forecast threats of forking again, when french
will know about that
I don't think there will be a fork.
It seems that fr.wikipedia.com is still on the Usemod software. So I could take away sysop privileges by changing the password. I won't do that right now, but I do not think that people should be banned for the things you have mentioned.
But, I have only so far heard your side of the story.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Mulot was banned for a week because she tried to propose another angle of view, an historical
timeline,
that could enrich the wiki.
Who did the ban?
Ha. I honestly can't answer for at least 4 people tried. Me included. Let's say we collectively hit the button. For we didnot know how to do it and had to ask around. It was to have a break from a discussion that was leading nowhere. All the people there agreed at that time (that is, except Mulot of course). But if I decided to do it, it was for everybody to have a break. I am not entirely sure why other people did it.
Another user was banned along because he "made the mistake" to state of
few
truths.
Well, this is a bit vague, but I'm listening. This doesn't sound like a good reason to ban someone.
It wasnot a good reason. I disagreed with that banning. Does it never happen on the en.wiki that a sysop ban somebody and another disagree with the decision ? What happens then ? Well, I dropped the matter, and unban all the ips after a week. That's all.
I have no problem with your decision of being the
only
one with the right to ban logged-in user, but
Well, that's not exactly what I've said. :-) I think that being logged in or not logged in is really not important.
I personally see no difference between these cases.
What's important is that none of us (even me) ban anyone for anything other than outright vandalism, without a long discussion first. And after that discussion, it falls on me to make a final decision.
But then, WHAT is outright vandalism ??? deleting a page : yes. Entirely removing content of a page : yes. Posting some goat stuff : yes. But does changing the content of an article vandalism ??? "how much change" is vandalisme ???
I was not online the day that happened, so it is hard to exactly know what happen. I'm not sure what I saw was vandalism or not. Was too messy. Others that were there could say better. But what I read were one deciding to change things without explanation beforehands, other adults reversing over and over and over what she was trying to do, and threatening to ban, and then some adults coming to a talking behavior and direct attack that I personally view as not acceptable. I saw people talking over the other's behavior much more than talking over the issue.
Clearly there was *much* try of discussion with Mulot. And it was not successful. But then, how much room is left when 5 to 10 people are flooding 1 alone ? none present trying to make the debate more neutral ?
In reality, what would have probably been the best solution would have been to protect the page, just to keep the discussion live. But this is not possible in usemod.
- people can still delete pages of those they
don't
agree with, instead of talking
This is by using a destructive delete? No one is supposed to use a destructive delete in an argument. If they blank the page, well, that's rude, but the other person can restore it from the history.
yes, that is supposed not to be used. However, one suggested that option, to copy the page. Let her play with it. Then delete it. And recreate it with the old stuff. We didnot do that.
Episodes like this are unpleasant, but tend to end fairly quickly, and both sides are "equal" in the fight.
Both sides are not equal in the fight when one side is 1, and the other side is 10 people with sysop power.
- I forecast threats of forking again, when french
will know about that
I don't think there will be a fork.
Good. I don't think either. But I am tired to hear some saying "we want that, and if the english are annoying us, we fork". That's unproductive. And that's tiring. And that is not what I believe best.
It seems that fr.wikipedia.com is still on the Usemod software. So I could take away sysop privileges by changing the password. I won't do that right now, but I do not think that people should be banned for the things you have mentioned.
Yes you could do that. But I think that would not be fair in the sense none of the sysop took decisions that were not carefully thought of and asked by the other wikipedians. I feel *very* incomfortable with the way consensus and neutrality are achieved on the fr, but not with the way we used blocking options.
When I say I see no pb with you taking the final decision, I definitly see a problem in you not being able to fully understand the context. Unless you read french of course. And I can't figure how you would extensively discuss the matter with the user being the problem if this one is not able to manage *your* langage.
But, I have only so far heard your side of the story.
very true. The middle side. You may ask others. Aoineko, Erwan, Shaihulud, Curry, Mokona, Youssefsan, Athymik, Xavier might tell you more. If they wish.
But if you want a *fair* view of what happened, you might try to find the various people who most probably represented Mulot or the six. They were a pain, but they had it right.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Anthere anthere5@yahoo.com writes:
But then, WHAT is outright vandalism ???
Anything that isn't a genuine attempt to improve the article. If it was well intended its not vandalism, if it wasn't, it is.
--- Gareth Owen wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Anthere anthere5@yahoo.com writes:
But then, WHAT is outright vandalism ???
Anything that isn't a genuine attempt to improve the article. If it was well intended its not vandalism, if it wasn't, it is.
I believe it was well intended. Thanks
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
Ha. I honestly can't answer for at least 4 people tried. Me included. Let's say we collectively hit the button. For we didnot know how to do it and had to ask around. It was to have a break from a discussion that was leading nowhere. All the people there agreed at that time (that is, except Mulot of course). But if I decided to do it, it was for everybody to have a break. I am not entirely sure why other people did it.
O.k., well, in a situation like that I would not agree, unless the banned person was doing something destructive. Simply disagreeing with the majority is not good cause for banning.
Another way to take a break from an argument is to just: take a break.
It wasnot a good reason. I disagreed with that banning. Does it never happen on the en.wiki that a sysop ban somebody and another disagree with the decision ? What happens then ?
Typically, the 2nd sysop would unban the person, and as a courtesy the 1st sysop would go along with it. Usually this is all accompanied with consultations with others. There's a very strong presumption against banning people.
Well, I dropped the matter, and unban all the ips after a week. That's all.
That sounds like a good idea.
But then, WHAT is outright vandalism ??? deleting a page : yes. Entirely removing content of a page : yes. Posting some goat stuff : yes. But does changing the content of an article vandalism ??? "how much change" is vandalisme ???
I don't think there's any simple formula for this. I'd say that if there's any major dispute over whether it is vandalism, then it really isn't.
In our experience on en.wikipedia, the line between vandalism and simple "bad writing" has always so far been pretty easy to draw.
If someone takes a good article, and edits it so it isn't as good, that's not usually vandalism. The right thing to do is to revert to the old version, while editing it and attempting to accomodate any legitimate points that the newcomer was trying to make.
Clearly there was *much* try of discussion with Mulot. And it was not successful. But then, how much room is left when 5 to 10 people are flooding 1 alone ? none present trying to make the debate more neutral ?
In reality, what would have probably been the best solution would have been to protect the page, just to keep the discussion live. But this is not possible in usemod.
Right. I think that many social issues are caused by limitations of the usemod software. For example, "destructive delete" has always been problematic.
Both sides are not equal in the fight when one side is 1, and the other side is 10 people with sysop power.
That's true enough, except that as a matter of honor, I think that sysops should not use their sysop power "in a fight".
There are three basic reasons that we have sysops. First, historically there have been some useful features that are "destructive" -- deleting. Second, there are sometimes true vandals, and it's nice for people to be able to ban them right away instead of waiting for me to do something about it. And finally, there are some commands (direct SQL queries) that might be really slow and should therefore be used only rarely.
Good. I don't think either. But I am tired to hear some saying "we want that, and if the english are annoying us, we fork". That's unproductive. And that's tiring. And that is not what I believe best.
Yeah, me too.
I fear that current tensions in the world (United States, 9/11, Iraq, Europe, etc.) may lead to tensions in our little world. This is not necessary and it is something we should all be careful about. We have a peaceful humanitarian mission here that is bigger than the current world political scene.
Yes you could do that. But I think that would not be fair in the sense none of the sysop took decisions that were not carefully thought of and asked by the other wikipedians. I feel *very* incomfortable with the way consensus and neutrality are achieved on the fr, but not with the way we used blocking options.
O.k., well, I'm willing to defer to your judgment, then. I understand that these issues are complex and messy.
When I say I see no pb with you taking the final decision, I definitly see a problem in you not being able to fully understand the context. Unless you read french of course.
Sadly, I do not. So it is important for me to listen to you and trust your reports.
And I can't figure how you would extensively discuss the matter with the user being the problem if this one is not able to manage *your* langage.
That's right. I can't do that. So I have to trust the judgment of those who speak French, to a very large degree.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote: Anthere wrote:
Ha. I honestly can't answer for at least 4 people tried. Me included. Let's say we collectively hit the button. For we didnot know how to do it and had to ask around. It was to have a break from a discussion that was leading nowhere. All the people there agreed at that time (that is, except Mulot of course). But if I decided to do it, it was for everybody to have a break. I am not entirely sure why other people did it.
O.k., well, in a situation like that I would not agree, unless the banned person was doing something destructive. Simply disagreeing with the majority is not good cause for banning.
OK. My belief is she was not destroying. But the others believed she was destroying. Along that belief, their action was justifiable. Mine was probably not.
Another way to take a break from an argument is to just: take a break.
True. That's why I sometimes move my "home" to the en.wiki. I recommend moving to another wiki to any person needing a break. Especially one in which they don't feel very confortable with (another langage :-)). That's a good way to learn patience and humility.
t wasnot a good reason. I disagreed with that anning. Does it never happen on the en.wiki that a sysop ban somebody and another disagree with the decision ? What happens then ?
Typically, the 2nd sysop would unban the person, and as a courtesy the 1st sysop would go along with it. Usually this is all accompanied with consultations with others. There's a very strong presumption against banning people.
The others played dead. And the 1st stick to his conviction. But I'll remember that
There are basic reasons that we have sysops. First, historically there have been some useful features that are "destructive" -- deleting. Second, there are sometimes true vandals, and it's nice for people to be able to ban them right away instead of waiting for me to do something about it. And finally, there are some commands (direct SQL queries) that might be really slow and should therefore be used only rarely.
I entirely trust Aoineko and Shaihulud for not willingly doing any permanent damage on articles or software.
I fear that current tensions in the world (United States, 9/11, Iraq, Europe, etc.) may lead to tensions in our little world. This is not necessary and it is something we should all be careful about. We have a peaceful humanitarian mission here that is bigger than the current world political scene.
I agree. Otherwise I would not spend time on this list.
As a matter of interest, one of the recurrent idea used by Mulot/6 was we didnot know how to discuss and accept different views as people did on the en.wiki, and that for that very reason the fr.wiki would never ever reach the en.quality. I mean, differences between us was used to infuriate people.
And I can't figure how you would extensively discuss the matter with the user being the problem if this one is not able to manage *your* langage.
that's right. I can't do that. So I have to trust the judgment of those who speak French, to a very large degree.
Believe me, I am sorry you can't explain that directly to fr people, I'd be happy if they said what they thought here. I am also sorry most don't even read some of the discussions here. It would help a lot.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more faith.yahoo.com
Now that the various wikis are being put together on *.wikipedia.org, the user accounts need to be consolidated. There should not be walls between editing the various translations of the wikipediae.
The Cunctator wrote:
Now that the various wikis are being put together on *.wikipedia.org, the user accounts need to be consolidated. There should not be walls between editing the various translations of the wikipediae.
I was wondering about that myself. I wonder if there's much of a problem with overlap already.
It'd be best, if we're going to do this, to do it sooner rather than later.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Now that the various wikis are being put together on *.wikipedia.org, the user accounts need to be consolidated. There should not be walls between editing the various translations of the wikipediae.
I was wondering about that myself. I wonder if there's much of a problem with overlap already.
It'd be best, if we're going to do this, to do it sooner rather than later.
One potential problem would be if the same name is used by different people on deparate wikipedias.
Eclecticology
The Cunctator wrote:
Now that the various wikis are being put together on *.wikipedia.org, the user accounts need to be consolidated. There should not be walls between editing the various translations of the wikipediae.
May be worth considering. The system is very much not set up for that presently; user data is stored in a table per-database, includes per-wiki options, and the login cookies are limited to an individual hostname, so don't cross languages.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org