[Foundation-l] "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As the examples given are all about the English Wikipedia it is clear that
the over involvement of the organisation is the problem itself.  As far as i
am concerned the organisation has only a remit to deal with projects and the
policy of projects when it is in line with what has been accepted as an
universal policy. If it is not, it takes imho a board decision to make a
policy one that is to be applied universally. This is in my opinion
something that should only happen with extreme reluctance.

When two projects have rules, it cannot be considered that either one has
more gravity then the other. When an en,wikpedian wants to make his profile
a SUL profile, he has to do what he has to do. This is reciprocal as the
en.wp reserves a far as I know this same right.

When a peron is banned from a project, and he continues to do his nefarious
works elsewhere, then there is no need to assume good faith. Outing people
is a violation of the English Wikipedia. It is that simple. The question is
what can you do about this. What room is there to do something about this?

There are many motherfuckers, typically they have someone calling them dad
or daddy.

Thanks,
      GerardM

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Cary Bass <cary at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm sending this email to foundation-l because there are a couple of
> situations evolving in our projects that I'm having a rough time dealing
> with, notably because the issues raised involve matters touching on
> privacy and the autonomy of the Wikimedia projects.
>
> People know my interest lies with the well being of the volunteers of
> our projects and our projects in general.  It's because of that interest
> that when I am sent issues about a dispute involving members of the
> community I have to look to the well-being of the projects themselves
> and see how this is being impacted.  Sometimes the issue involves the
> interests of one project over another.  Often, the issues are only
> resolved by bringing the light of day to the matter and allow the
> broader community at large to discuss the issues.
>
> Scenario 1:
> An active user with an unusual username on the English Wikipedia has,
> for whatever reason, never taken advantage of SUL.  An account opens up
> on a much project which is, given the name, implausibly anything other
> than an impostor of the English Wikipedia account.  It does, however,
> have apparently useful contributions (no difficult matter on this wiki
> if one is familiar with it); and the local community, while believing
> that the account is an impostor account seems to be unwilling to resolve
> the situation without demanding that the user come to the smaller
> project and ask for usurpation.   Obviously, we wouldn't want to force
> the issue with an autonomous project.
>
> How should this be addressed?
>
> Does the user have any other option than editing the smaller wiki and
> adding the Username Change request, which basically subjects the user to
> his/her IP information being revealed to additional individuals, not of
> his/her own wiki?
>
> Scenario 2:
> A user has been banned on enwiki.  The user has "outed" psuedonymous
> individuals via his blog and threads Wikipedia Review by compiling
> information put together elsewhere on the net.  He has taken to another
> wiki and under the auspices of the local wiki's policy, has put back
> links to pages which have links to pages (sometimes several pages deep)
> which "outs" the individuals.
>
> Is this a violation of our privacy policy as it exists?  If not, how can
> we best address the needs of the local projects?  We have to assume the
> user is sincere about his project, because AGF is a core principle.  If
> he is sincere, can he not contribute in a fashion that doesn't create so
> much hardship on other contributors?
>
> Of course, we cannot gauge the sincerity, but if he is not, what then?
> Does allowing an enwiki user to game another of our projects create long
> term trouble for the wiki in the future (exportation of wikidrama from
> enwiki to another project).  Does the foundation or the community at
> large have an obligation to ensuring this doesn't happen?
>
> - ----
> These are but two issues which may or may not deserve the light of the
> community at large.  I'd like to know the range of opinions and help in
> determining where the foundation's responsibility ends, my
> responsibility as VolCo, and the meta community (given that this
> involves cross-wiki issues) at large.
>
> - --
> Cary Bass
> Volunteer Coordinator
>
> Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
> Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601
> Fax: 415.882.0495
>
> E-Mail: cary at wikimedia.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkigmakACgkQyQg4JSymDYle1ACgntiPP8Ztmtl5d9lbdL+lQ3Qw
> SWoAn1O3tK7/z08f7x9o9PKgWeJ8gmJI
> =LEaJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>