[Foundation-l] Issues regarding admin(s?) on wikinews, effects: globally

[Kyle Lutze]

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 at 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 at 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