[Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?

[Birgitte SB]

This is gotten really long so I going to attempt
summaries:

--- Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Birgitte SB wrote:

> > However, in general the people who are trusted
> from a
> > Foundation perspective take little interest in the
> > running of the smaller projects.
> 
> I would not say this at all. Trust does not come
> from being a 
> participant in a *big* project, or on a major
> language. Trust comes from 
> the frequent interaction we have with some editors
> and from sharing 
> certain tasks, which allow to get to know each
> other.
> 
> How does that happen ? 

>{{Explanation of getting noticed by Foundation
people}}

I completely understand how someone from a project big
or small 
becomes trusted and agree that it can only happen by
getting to 
know a person.  What I meant was in the other
direction; that the 
trusted people don't check in on the small projects. 
Before the 
copyright issue I always assumed the Foundation knew
generally 
what happened at Wikisource.  I certainly thought some
one was 
reading our policy pages and approved of them.  That
someone 
made sure we had an active bueraucrat and responsible
admistrators.  
However in reality the Foundation knows very little of
how smaller 
projects are run and makes no effort that I know of to
check-in.  
The only attention such projects recieve is if they
come to a 
Foundation level people with a problem.  That is not
good.  
I really believe if a big Wikimedia scandal occurs it
will be 
in one of these small non-English, non-German,
non-Japanese, 
non-French projects.  Right now there could be
policies in 
place that expose the Foundation to as much liability
as 
abuse of Checkuser.  Who knows?


> 
> Do you have kids ?
> 

No.

>>{{My  exeperience needing checkuser an blocking
dicomfort}}

> nod.
> 
>>{{There are small project divested from the
Foundation in all but name}}

> nod.
> Recently, some chinese editors also joined.
> We need a common ground where to meet each others.
> 
> :I believe there
> > are other problems we haven't yet imagined already
>> out
> > there.  Things need to be handled differently. 
> > Perhaps new projects are approved to easily. 
> 
> Waitaminutehere. The last approved project...
> was...wikinews. It was 
> quite a while ago !

Perhaps project was the wrong word.  I mean new
community. 
New languages that don't have adminstrators in place

 

> > {{Numerous ideas for better intergration}}

>{{Numerous previous attempts at intergration and
stories 
>of past horrors}}

> If you have ideas, please, by all means, provide
them. Or better, 
>IMPLEMENT them.

>>{{How Wikisource and other small projects are
different 
>>from Wikipedia}}

>Which strongly suggest me that we should rather try
to have 
>inter-projects checkusers.
>Let me see... Karynn for example, is apparently a
motivated checkuser, 
>with the full tech knowledge necessary. She may not
be an arbitrator, I 
>think she is trusted as a checkuser. Why not having
her checkuser on 
>several english speaking projects ?

>Would not it be wiser than some inactive editors
becoming checkuser on 
>wikibooks just because *there ought to be* a
checkuser ? If the user 
>has 
>done less than 50 edits in the past 3 months, it
makes no sense that he 
>becomes checkuser really.

>In any cases, I fully understand the different nature
of editorship.

Inter-project checkusers would be fine.  Actually I
think that having stewards
do checkuser is fine.  Except that it doesn't happen. 
I don't have problem 
with the denial of local checkusers, so much as the
denial of the checkuser
information completely.  The current system would be
fine if it only worked :)

>>Also as Robert
>> Horning said, we attract vandals of a sophisticaton
WP
> >never even imagined when there were only 12
> >administrators.  I feel that if projects like
> >Wikisource and Wikibooks are continually regarded
by
> >the Foundation the way they are now, they will
become
> >like difficult step-childrem.

>How are they regarded ?

>As far as I am concerned, Wikibooks at least has a
life on its own. It 
>knows very well how to keep joke books, remove
Wikiversity or wikimania 
>proceedings. And it has a few vocal representatives
on its list :-)

>Admittedly, I know much less of Wikisource. But you
are here now, no ? 
>:-)

They are regarded in this way.  They are left alone
without guidelines or
advice and told to make thier own community; govern
themselves.  Then when
everything seems to be going fine some one steps in
and says "Oh you guys
are doing *that*.  That is no good, you have get rid
of that.   And you must make up your 
own rules with the details of what goes and what can
stay.  Sorry I can't really give 
advice"  And then they make new policies and no one is
willing say the new policy
actually kosher.  So they hold their breath and hope
the whole thing doesn't repeat 
again.  

It is not that I don't think we are valued so much as
I feel we don't really know 
where we stand.  It as if we want to build something
wonderful and strong and 
proper; then it rains and we find out it was just a
sandcastle.  And when we ask for 
new materials we are just given more sand.  I know
eveyone only wants the best
for us, and I do not think there is any lack of
respect.  I just see these situations
repeating and people becoming frustrated if nothing
changes.  And that is why I 
am here.  Why I joined this list, because maybe that
way Wikisource can be better 
informed in policy decisions.  But I am more worried
about the other communities that
are not currently represented here.  I want to speak
up for them and say Wikisource 
was once not plugged into the Foudation and we were
unaware of major problems.  
Some other community is out there is with no idea they
will have to destroy 
their own work when it comes to light.  This is not so
much about Wikisource as them

>>{{Intergration and Trust are needed}}

>Speaking of trust. One suggestion made last summer
was that those given 
>checkuser access should provide their real names.
What is your opinion 
>about this ?
>If the Foundation trusts those with checkusers to use
it according to 
>policy, would checkusers trust the Foundation enough
to provide their 
>real names ?

I am surprised that this is not already required.  I
think you mean the 
Board would have access to the real names and not the
people 
who are being checked, right?

>>{{Old copyright policy problems}}

>No. It is worse than this...
>The Foundation board did not discuss this issue, even
less took a 
>decision about copyrights on wikisource. I presume it
came from a 
>discussion between Jimbo and legal bodies. I am
intentionally vague on 
>your UN resolutions and Crown legislation deletions
because I am not 
>aware of it.
>Sorry.

That is worse.  Really the discussion happened on this
list.  We never 
got any real official ruling just vague comments that
GFDL is good
everything else is bad.  This really not good enough
for many
reasons I will not get into.  It is not simple but I
do not want to 
force answers from people who are not knowledgable,
because
that is what caused the deletion of UN and Crown in my
opinion.

>>{{Being cautious with copyright waiting for the
other shoe to drop}}

>This is a problem. Have you talked to JImbo for
clarification ? You are 
>lucky, you share a language... Imagine japanese
editors...

See above.  Yes I think some other languages are going
to have
rude shock about these kind of issues in the future. 
It will be worse
because they will be much further along than we were
when this 
happened. Thats why I am bringing this up.  I want to
find a solution
before there is another 6 months of work put into
these projects
that will have to be deleted.  I am thinking of those
people most of
all.

>>{{ either too gun-shy to keep contributing, or
decide to just ignore
> > the rules they feel are arbitrary.}}

>I am a proponent of ignore all rules...

Well yes, but we don't want people to go too far out
of bounds.

>PS : do you like mint tea ?

I really do like all kinds of tea.  But I never make
it at home
I only order it at rrestaurants. 

BirgitteSB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com