[Foundation-l] Wiktionary blocking policy

Todd Allen toddmallen at gmail.com
Mon Dec 31 10:33:04 UTC 2007

On Dec 30, 2007 1:08 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Block with no warning is - in most cases - unacceptable, and I'm sure most
> > people here would agree with that. I don't make a lot of use of wiktionary,
> > but if people don't get {{test}} and {{don't disrupt}} templates then I do
> > not believe the project's administrators are doing their job properly.
> A few points are worth making here. First, the other projects are not
> wikipedia, and there is no reason to suspect that the same rules,
> guidelines and standards that are common on Wikipedia are going to be
> common anywhere else. I know that on Wikibooks, we are far less
> lenient with our vandals then the Wikipedians are, and we suffer far
> fewer vandalism attacks because of it. We do, of course, have an
> appeals process for the occasional false-positive (it's never come
> up), but I have no reason to assume that en.Wiktionary would have the
> same or even a similar process to what we have.
> What constitutes an administrators "job" varies from project to
> project, and what constitutes the "proper" performance of that job
> also varies. What kinds of behavior the wikitionary community have
> discussed and agreed upon amongst themselves may be completely
> different from the decisions reached on en.wp. I wouldn't be so quick
> to condemn the volunteers of another community without knowing more of
> the background information, if I were you.
> > I'm sure some might argue this should have been raised on the wiktionary
> > mailing list, but I believe if a project has - as in this case - earned a
> > reputation for capriciously wielding the banhammer it needs the wider
> > Wikimedia community to say this is unacceptable.
> If you want all the projects to conform to some basic, minimum
> standard, then it behouves us to put that standard into writing. I
> think such an effort would be doomed to failure, but maybe the
> "minimum" is small enough so as not to raise too many objections.
> Also, if we want the board of the "Wikimedia Community" to get
> involved, it would be good to specify how such an intervention would
> even take place.
> --Andrew Whitworth
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

As far as I know, there is no Foundation directive for the handling of
vandals. I'd personally like to see us -much- less lenient with
vandals on en.wp (one warning, do it again you're gone), I really see
nothing wrong with getting rid of people who come around to disrupt
rather than contribute.

Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list