Erik Moeller a écrit:
Tim-
Wikipedia will forever be haunted by problems such
as these, since, at
Anthere's request, I turned username blocking off by default. I'll turn
it on at meta. Are there any other wikis you want it enabled at, while
I'm at it? How about simple, wikibooks and wiktionary?
I sympathize with Anthere's concerns. If there are no clear policies on
banning in one language, sysops might feel encouraged to ban signed in
contributors for non-vandalism. This would clearly be problematic and
difficult to resolve from outside.
As long as there is no clear policy in any language, and that the
discussion has not been made *in that language*, I think it is the
right/duty of the community of *this* language to decide such a thing.
However, I think the right thing to do is to inform
all Wikipedias about
this pending change, and to set a clear policy on banning that is valid
across all Wikipedias. Having inconsistent configurations is a very bad
thing for a multitude of reasons.
I disagree Erik.
There are a couple of policies that are *mandatory* across all
wikipedias, such as the npov one.
There are a couple of policies that might be *recommanded* consistant
across all wikipedia (such as the positionning of interlanguages links :-))
But there are very numerous policies that have to be decided by each
local community. The policy of banning on en is not the *correct* policy
to handle difficult user, it is *one* point of view among other. A pov
that might fit the cultural background of en users, but not of all
wikipedias.
You might consider expliciting the "for a multitude of reasons" for any
further fruitful discussions on why multiplicity of view points is a
"very bad thing".
For all these reasons, I go on considering that the possibility of
banning user names should be kept exceptions rather than rules for the
wikipedias that have never discussed it (usually, this will be discussed
first time a persistent pseudonymed vandal will get on that wikipedia).
There are other options to deal with problematic users. And some
wikipedias might wish to use other ways than those decided by english users.
This said, I agree with the feature being turned on meta, because it is
a difficult place to keep clean, in particular because of language
issues (such as a banned user of one wiki having to be stopped there). I
would appreciate, however, that Mav discuss updating the policy if this
is made possible :-)
To this end, I think it is absolutely necessary to
merge the wikipedia-l
and intwiki-l mailing lists. intwiki-l is effectively a ghetto for the
non-English lists, and people from the non-English wikis complain that
they haven't heard about policy decisions on wikipedia-l. There's really
no good reason to have two different lists here.
I agree with this. Intwiki is a dead place :-)
Regards,
Erik