Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Dealing with interwiki disruption

1 2 3

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

millosh at gmail

May 8, 2008, 1:09 AM

Post #26 of 53 (1300 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

On Thursday 08 May 2008 06:11:31 Aphaia wrote:
> Thanks for your information but it doesn't sound an "interwiki" thing
> at all. It sounds rather trwiki internal issue and that's all.
>
> And I would add using stewards as deus ex machina to judge community
> issues is a horrible idea, at least for me. Trwiki, in this case,
> would be better to settle their own arbcom; again it doesn't look like
> "interwiki" things.

This was and interwiki issue because crosswiki CU action was needed (including
CU action at tr.wp by steward because of limited amount of time and long CU
procedure at tr.wp).

BTW, Turkic languages are generally mutually understandable; especially
Turkish and Azerbaijani. And projects in Turkic languages projects are good
example for possible crosswiki block by default: a person which showed
disruptive behavior at one of those projects will be disruptive on all other
from that language group.

I would also like to see some wikis to implement long term blocks decided by
en.wp ArbCom (maybe by other ArbComs, too; but I am introduced only in en.wp
ArbCom work). While en.wp ArbCom decisions related to desysoping or operative
decisions for some set of articles or similar may be questionable -- I don't
have any doubt about their decisions about long term blocks. And it would
make dealing with projects disruption easier.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

birgitte_sb at yahoo

May 8, 2008, 2:21 AM

Post #27 of 53 (1283 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

--- On Thu, 5/8/08, Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail> wrote:

> From: Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008, 3:09 AM
> On Thursday 08 May 2008 06:11:31 Aphaia wrote:
> > Thanks for your information but it doesn't sound
> an "interwiki" thing
> > at all. It sounds rather trwiki internal issue and
> that's all.
> >
> > And I would add using stewards as deus ex machina to
> judge community
> > issues is a horrible idea, at least for me. Trwiki, in
> this case,
> > would be better to settle their own arbcom; again it
> doesn't look like
> > "interwiki" things.
>
> This was and interwiki issue because crosswiki CU action
> was needed (including
> CU action at tr.wp by steward because of limited amount of
> time and long CU
> procedure at tr.wp).
>
> BTW, Turkic languages are generally mutually
> understandable; especially
> Turkish and Azerbaijani. And projects in Turkic languages
> projects are good
> example for possible crosswiki block by default: a person
> which showed
> disruptive behavior at one of those projects will be
> disruptive on all other
> from that language group.
>
> I would also like to see some wikis to implement long term
> blocks decided by
> en.wp ArbCom (maybe by other ArbComs, too; but I am
> introduced only in en.wp
> ArbCom work). While en.wp ArbCom decisions related to
> desysoping or operative
> decisions for some set of articles or similar may be
> questionable -- I don't
> have any doubt about their decisions about long term
> blocks. And it would
> make dealing with projects disruption easier.

There have already been several people in this thread from English non-WP wikis who have said they do not want to implement blocks/bans from en.WP and they have given actual examples showing they would lose valuable contributers. As I haven't said so before let me add my voice to say that I do not think people blocked on en.WP are inherently problems at en.WS. Why are you pushing this?

Birgitte SB

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

millosh at gmail

May 8, 2008, 3:52 AM

Post #28 of 53 (1299 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

On Thursday 08 May 2008 11:21:33 Birgitte SB wrote:
> There have already been several people in this thread from English non-WP
> wikis who have said they do not want to implement blocks/bans from en.WP
> and they have given actual examples showing they would lose valuable
> contributers. As I haven't said so before let me add my voice to say that I
> do not think people blocked on en.WP are inherently problems at en.WS. Why
> are you pushing this?

I am not talking about short-term blocks, I am talking about 6 months+ blocks.
Also, I am not talking about this as a mandatory solution, but as an opt-in
solution. (Note that en.wp is not my home project, too.)

There are a couple of good reasons for that:

- en.wp ArbCom has its own rules and I am sure that it isn't making mistakes
about long term blocks.

- Long term blocks are reserved for very disruptive users. I really don't
think that someone who was so disruptive at en.wp -- would be more
constructive at some other project.

- Small projects (not those maintained by stewards, but those which have a
community) usually suffer heavily by users already proved as disruptive at
en.wp. (This is especially true for non-English projects.) Usually, the same
user will be blocked at other wiki, but in a very painful process for that
community.

- If Meta ArbCom becomes reality, I think that it should process all longer
blocks made by any other ArbCom and conclude are the reasons good enough for
long time block (which means that such user should get Wikimedia-wide block)
or a local ArbCom should consider decision once again.

- It is also possible option that en.wp ArbCom gives a suggestion for longer
blocks: are they strictly en.wp related or a user is a threat to all WM
projects.

With some discussion about this issue, I am sure that we would be able to find
a way how to deal better and faster with disruptive users.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

aphaia at gmail

May 8, 2008, 5:10 AM

Post #29 of 53 (1294 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to
have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason
to oppose strongly your idea.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail> wrote:
> I am not talking about short-term blocks, I am talking about 6 months+ blocks.
> Also, I am not talking about this as a mandatory solution, but as an opt-in
> solution. (Note that en.wp is not my home project, too.)

> There are a couple of good reasons for that:
>
> - en.wp ArbCom has its own rules and I am sure that it isn't making mistakes
> about long term blocks.
>
> - Long term blocks are reserved for very disruptive users. I really don't
> think that someone who was so disruptive at en.wp -- would be more
> constructive at some other project.

I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be
promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from
English Wikipedia Arbcom?

And re: English Wikiquote I sure she was, is and hopefully will be one
of the best editors we've ever had.

> - Small projects (not those maintained by stewards, but those which have a
> community) usually suffer heavily by users already proved as disruptive at
> en.wp. (This is especially true for non-English projects.) Usually, the same
> user will be blocked at other wiki, but in a very painful process for that
> community.
>
> - If Meta ArbCom becomes reality, I think that it should process all longer
> blocks made by any other ArbCom and conclude are the reasons good enough for
> long time block (which means that such user should get Wikimedia-wide block)
> or a local ArbCom should consider decision once again.
>
> - It is also possible option that en.wp ArbCom gives a suggestion for longer
> blocks: are they strictly en.wp related or a user is a threat to all WM
> projects.
>
> With some discussion about this issue, I am sure that we would be able to find
> a way how to deal better and faster with disruptive users.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

May 8, 2008, 5:24 AM

Post #30 of 53 (1286 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

Hoi,
Please consider that Milos is just one voice among many that feel a need for
a council that deals with the issues that are currently not getting the
attention that they deserve. When some want an Arbcomm that override that
deals with cases that deal with individuals, others see a global arbcomm as
a body that ensures some harmonisation between the different projects. When
NPOV is no longer considered to be exactly that, how do we deal with this.
Do we want the board, the organisation to step in or will the projects deal
with such issues themselves ??

It is exactly because there is no vision what a council will be doing, that
it was proposed to trash out a proposal first. This still needs doing and
only then it will become relevant to support or oppose parts of what is
proposed or all that is proposed. In my opinion, what the council will in
reality do will be different from what we expect at this stage.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia <aphaia [at] gmail> wrote:

> IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to
> have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason
> to oppose strongly your idea.
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail> wrote:
> > I am not talking about short-term blocks, I am talking about 6 months+
> blocks.
> > Also, I am not talking about this as a mandatory solution, but as an
> opt-in
> > solution. (Note that en.wp is not my home project, too.)
>
> > There are a couple of good reasons for that:
> >
> > - en.wp ArbCom has its own rules and I am sure that it isn't making
> mistakes
> > about long term blocks.
> >
> > - Long term blocks are reserved for very disruptive users. I really don't
> > think that someone who was so disruptive at en.wp -- would be more
> > constructive at some other project.
>
>
> I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be
> promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from
> English Wikipedia Arbcom?
>
> And re: English Wikiquote I sure she was, is and hopefully will be one
> of the best editors we've ever had.
>
> > - Small projects (not those maintained by stewards, but those which have
> a
> > community) usually suffer heavily by users already proved as disruptive
> at
> > en.wp. (This is especially true for non-English projects.) Usually, the
> same
> > user will be blocked at other wiki, but in a very painful process for
> that
> > community.
> >
> > - If Meta ArbCom becomes reality, I think that it should process all
> longer
> > blocks made by any other ArbCom and conclude are the reasons good enough
> for
> > long time block (which means that such user should get Wikimedia-wide
> block)
> > or a local ArbCom should consider decision once again.
> >
> > - It is also possible option that en.wp ArbCom gives a suggestion for
> longer
> > blocks: are they strictly en.wp related or a user is a threat to all WM
> > projects.
> >
> > With some discussion about this issue, I am sure that we would be able to
> find
> > a way how to deal better and faster with disruptive users.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> KIZU Naoko
> http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
> Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail

May 8, 2008, 7:44 AM

Post #31 of 53 (1252 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

Yes I know all this. But for example for some issues often the system is
clogged

For example all English language projects should be briefed about disruption
on each other. That is disruption aside from vandalism.

I guess what I am looking for is an information portal of major cases of
disruption on all wikis. Ja.wikipedia will probably be unaware of
En.wikipedia issues such as the CAMERA incident.

A mailing list would not do the trick since we are looking at notes rather
than discussions. Help me out conceptualize.

-White Cat

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:47 PM, mike.lifeguard <mike.lifeguard [at] gmail>
wrote:

> If you want better interwiki communication, then go do it. I can't agree
> more with that goal, but to make it work, users (esp. admins and CUs) need
> to go out and do it every day. For the most part, CUs /are/ doing this -
> that's what our mailing list is for. For admins, there is #wikimedia-admin,
> which is invite-only, but not hard to find someone to let you in. If you're
> not on IRC, then there is also drini's daylog
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Drini/daylog) and the vandalism
> noticeboard
> (
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_reports#Current_cross_wiki_vandali
> sm).
>
> Perhaps setting up an additional mailing list for admins involved
> cross-wiki
> to mirror the IRC channel would be useful? The CUs have both, why not both
> for admins too? Perhaps it'd be better to have it limited to members of
> SWMT
> rather than just admins? That point might need more thought, but I think a
> mailing list where this kind of info can be shared could well be useful
> (more useful than #wikimedia-admin).
>
> Mike.lifeguard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: White Cat [mailto:wikipedia.kawaii.neko [at] gmail]
> Sent: May 6, 2008 1:23 AM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
>
> Exactly and the local community wasn't completely oblivious to Poetlisters
> conduct back on English wikipedia. He was carefully watched, tutored and
> polished to what he is now. His own effort was vital, no doubt, but he
> wasn't unguided.
>
> What I am suggesting is not an Interwiki Police, I would be the first in
> line to oppose that. What I am suggesting is better communication between
> wikis. The arrogant tone between wikis should be abolished.
>
> What I seek is better information sharing between wikis. I should not need
> to pay attention to individual noticeboards and block logs of every wiki.
> Intense cases of disruption should be noted in the same site.
>
> For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared among
> checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to register
> the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should be prepared for
> it.
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger [at] gmail>
> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, just yesterday Poetlister was unblocked on en.wikipedia, at
> > least partly based on her long history of good conduct at Wikiquote.
> > One of the canonical ways to get unbanned is to go to another project
> > and behave.
> >
> > WilyD
> >
> > On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Chad <innocentkiller [at] gmail> wrote:
> > > Can't wait for the politics of that one.
> > >
> > > Community 1: Block him! UserABC was bad here!
> > > Community 2: He's a highly productive user here.
> > >
> > > I'm sure we can all imagine how that'd end up.
> > >
> > > -Chad
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge [at] telus>
> > wrote:
> > > > White Cat wrote:
> > > > > Look let me give a real-life example. Say you commit a crime in
> > the US, if
> > > > > you were to escape to Mexico you would freely roam aaround
> because
> > you have
> > > > > not done anything wrong there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Each individual wiki is independent yes, but we need a level of
> > > > > communication among wikis. Like between fr.wikipedia and
> > fr.wikibooks or
> > > > > en.wiktionary and simple.wikipedia, same language sister project.
> > > > Ah! Something like interwiki extradition. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Ec
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l [at] lists
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail

May 8, 2008, 7:47 AM

Post #32 of 53 (1260 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

Maybe a foundation committee to cut through the bureaucracy when necesary...
I do not think this is a task for stewards.

-- White Cat

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Please consider that Milos is just one voice among many that feel a need
> for
> a council that deals with the issues that are currently not getting the
> attention that they deserve. When some want an Arbcomm that override that
> deals with cases that deal with individuals, others see a global arbcomm as
> a body that ensures some harmonisation between the different projects. When
> NPOV is no longer considered to be exactly that, how do we deal with this.
> Do we want the board, the organisation to step in or will the projects deal
> with such issues themselves ??
>
> It is exactly because there is no vision what a council will be doing, that
> it was proposed to trash out a proposal first. This still needs doing and
> only then it will become relevant to support or oppose parts of what is
> proposed or all that is proposed. In my opinion, what the council will in
> reality do will be different from what we expect at this stage.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia <aphaia [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to
> > have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason
> > to oppose strongly your idea.
> >
> > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail> wrote:
> > > I am not talking about short-term blocks, I am talking about 6 months+
> > blocks.
> > > Also, I am not talking about this as a mandatory solution, but as an
> > opt-in
> > > solution. (Note that en.wp is not my home project, too.)
> >
> > > There are a couple of good reasons for that:
> > >
> > > - en.wp ArbCom has its own rules and I am sure that it isn't making
> > mistakes
> > > about long term blocks.
> > >
> > > - Long term blocks are reserved for very disruptive users. I really
> don't
> > > think that someone who was so disruptive at en.wp -- would be more
> > > constructive at some other project.
> >
> >
> > I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be
> > promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from
> > English Wikipedia Arbcom?
> >
> > And re: English Wikiquote I sure she was, is and hopefully will be one
> > of the best editors we've ever had.
> >
> > > - Small projects (not those maintained by stewards, but those which
> have
> > a
> > > community) usually suffer heavily by users already proved as disruptive
> > at
> > > en.wp. (This is especially true for non-English projects.) Usually, the
> > same
> > > user will be blocked at other wiki, but in a very painful process for
> > that
> > > community.
> > >
> > > - If Meta ArbCom becomes reality, I think that it should process all
> > longer
> > > blocks made by any other ArbCom and conclude are the reasons good
> enough
> > for
> > > long time block (which means that such user should get Wikimedia-wide
> > block)
> > > or a local ArbCom should consider decision once again.
> > >
> > > - It is also possible option that en.wp ArbCom gives a suggestion for
> > longer
> > > blocks: are they strictly en.wp related or a user is a threat to all WM
> > > projects.
> > >
> > > With some discussion about this issue, I am sure that we would be able
> to
> > find
> > > a way how to deal better and faster with disruptive users.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > KIZU Naoko
> > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
> > Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail

May 8, 2008, 7:55 AM

Post #33 of 53 (1275 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

1) This is not about the Jack Merridew case. I have got a lot to say about
that but I wont as that isn't the scope of this. I have been observing
difficulties on interwiki related issues for quite some time. Assuming good
faith towards me isn't banned, keep that in mind.
2) Do not quote me without permission. Publishing IRC logs publicaly may get
you banned from all Wikimedia channels - or so it says when you join
channels. Frankly it is very rude.

- White Cat

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Aphaia <aphaia [at] gmail> wrote:
> > Thanks for your information but it doesn't sound an "interwiki" thing
> > at all. It sounds rather trwiki internal issue and that's all.
> >
> > And I would add using stewards as deus ex machina to judge community
> > issues is a horrible idea, at least for me. Trwiki, in this case,
> > would be better to settle their own arbcom; again it doesn't look like
> > "interwiki" things.
>
> I want to remember that this thread started because White Cat wanted
> Jack Merridew blocked *by stewards* in projects where he edited and
> without obvious (according to several of us who looked) disruption
>
> In his words:
> >> Consider the scenario where a disruptive user is indefinitely blocked on
> a
> >> particular wiki. He decides to have a "fresh start" in causing the same
> >> slow-paced disruption on all sister projects one by one...
>
> Yes, someone else pointed that trouble users will eventually prove
> themselves and get blocked, that's true, nothing new is needed.
>
> Now what is being proposed is a board to track "trouble users" who are
> not obvious vandals (like those who checkusers track crosswiki), and
> block them so they can't "escape to Mexico to commit more murders" but
> just "controversial users". It sounds a bit to me like stalking
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

millosh at gmail

May 8, 2008, 7:57 AM

Post #34 of 53 (1294 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia <aphaia [at] gmail> wrote:
> IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to
> have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason
> to oppose strongly your idea.

May you read my emails again and find where I said so? I proposed
forming of Meta ArbCom, as well as I mentioned that VC may act as a
*temporary* Meta ArbCom because we need some body to start to deal
with sediments of problems before it is too late.

> I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be
> promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from
> English Wikipedia Arbcom?

If some body/group/community makes some unreasonable decision (en.wp
ArbCom is not the first, not the last; jp.wp community decision for
your block is much more problematic because it was, AFAIK,
*community's* decision, not ArbCom's decision) -- there are ways for
working on making them more reasonable. However, without Meta ArbCom
and/or VC we don't have a regular method for that.

The other option is to give global power to local ArbComs. If one
ArbCom is not reasonable, other ArbComs will notice that...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail

May 8, 2008, 7:58 AM

Post #35 of 53 (1265 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

What is this tr.wikipedia claim based on? I'd like to hear the logic behind
it. After all you would not be making baseless claims, right?

- White Cat

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:11 AM, Aphaia <aphaia [at] gmail> wrote:

> Thanks for your information but it doesn't sound an "interwiki" thing
> at all. It sounds rather trwiki internal issue and that's all.
>
> And I would add using stewards as deus ex machina to judge community
> issues is a horrible idea, at least for me. Trwiki, in this case,
> would be better to settle their own arbcom; again it doesn't look like
> "interwiki" things.
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 06 May 2008 20:13:26 Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > > > For example checkuser info on indef blocked user should be shared
> among
> > > > checkusers. If user 'A' is banned on wiki 'X' and then decides to
> > > > register the account 'B' on the wiki 'Y' the local community should
> be
> > > > prepared for it.
> > >
> > > I have no use for this kind of infectious paranoia.
> >
> > This is our reality. I already have one example: a person with the
> account A
> > was on tr and az wps. They were banned at tr some time ago, then, after
> some
> > time at az wp, while having the account B at tr.wp. With somewhat more
> > effective CU organization, account B would be banned at tr.wp at the
> time
> > when the account A was banned at az.wp. However, account B was in the
> process
> > of getting admin permissions at tr.wp. And the process of blocking it
> was
> > very painful for tr.wp community. Instead of having a regular method for
> > dealing with such kind of problems, they needed deux ex machina, some
> steward
> > who will do one IAR for them.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> KIZU Naoko
> http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
> Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

brian.mcneil at wikinewsie

May 8, 2008, 9:48 AM

Post #36 of 53 (1279 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

I will start by highlighting that I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews.
This means I am on the CheckUser-l mailing list and have seen the discussion
that has privately taken place about a global blocking mechanism.

My understanding of the requested functionality is that it is primarily for
the most irritating IP addresses. We're not talking about someone who might
reform if they go to another project, we're talking about people who create
dozens of socks and take a perverse joy in making people clean up after
them. The people who project hop in the hope of vandalising undetected; the
really persistent vandals, not the strongly opinionated. We're talking
"Willy on Wheels", not "Wendy on Wako".

Brian McNeil
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces [at] lists
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces [at] lists] On Behalf Of Milos Rancic
Sent: 08 May 2008 16:58
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia <aphaia [at] gmail> wrote:
> IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to
> have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason
> to oppose strongly your idea.

May you read my emails again and find where I said so? I proposed
forming of Meta ArbCom, as well as I mentioned that VC may act as a
*temporary* Meta ArbCom because we need some body to start to deal
with sediments of problems before it is too late.

> I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be
> promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from
> English Wikipedia Arbcom?

If some body/group/community makes some unreasonable decision (en.wp
ArbCom is not the first, not the last; jp.wp community decision for
your block is much more problematic because it was, AFAIK,
*community's* decision, not ArbCom's decision) -- there are ways for
working on making them more reasonable. However, without Meta ArbCom
and/or VC we don't have a regular method for that.

The other option is to give global power to local ArbComs. If one
ArbCom is not reasonable, other ArbComs will notice that...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

May 8, 2008, 10:37 AM

Post #37 of 53 (1295 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

Brian McNeil wrote:
> I will start by highlighting that I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews.
> This means I am on the CheckUser-l mailing list and have seen the discussion
> that has privately taken place about a global blocking mechanism.
>
> My understanding of the requested functionality is that it is primarily for
> the most irritating IP addresses. We're not talking about someone who might
> reform if they go to another project, we're talking about people who create
> dozens of socks and take a perverse joy in making people clean up after
> them. The people who project hop in the hope of vandalising undetected; the
> really persistent vandals, not the strongly opinionated. We're talking
> "Willy on Wheels", not "Wendy on Wako".
If you build an environment of trust this concept would go through more
easily, but the enthusiasm that some have shown for the proposal is
worrisome. There is no confidence that everyone advantaged by this tool
would use it wisely.

It is one thing to say that the tool would only be used against the most
flagrant violators; it is quite another to believe that everyone will so
limit himself in using a process which must often be performed in
secrecy.

The autonomy of projects is important, and members of projects need to
feel that the autonomy will not be compromised by others making
decisions without consultation with the members of the affected community.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail

May 8, 2008, 10:50 AM

Post #38 of 53 (1257 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right?

The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to
the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive
user.

When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another
wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit
en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are
dealing with.

-- White Cat

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge [at] telus> wrote:

> Brian McNeil wrote:
> > I will start by highlighting that I have CheckUser on the English
> Wikinews.
> > This means I am on the CheckUser-l mailing list and have seen the
> discussion
> > that has privately taken place about a global blocking mechanism.
> >
> > My understanding of the requested functionality is that it is primarily
> for
> > the most irritating IP addresses. We're not talking about someone who
> might
> > reform if they go to another project, we're talking about people who
> create
> > dozens of socks and take a perverse joy in making people clean up after
> > them. The people who project hop in the hope of vandalising undetected;
> the
> > really persistent vandals, not the strongly opinionated. We're talking
> > "Willy on Wheels", not "Wendy on Wako".
> If you build an environment of trust this concept would go through more
> easily, but the enthusiasm that some have shown for the proposal is
> worrisome. There is no confidence that everyone advantaged by this tool
> would use it wisely.
>
> It is one thing to say that the tool would only be used against the most
> flagrant violators; it is quite another to believe that everyone will so
> limit himself in using a process which must often be performed in
> secrecy.
>
> The autonomy of projects is important, and members of projects need to
> feel that the autonomy will not be compromised by others making
> decisions without consultation with the members of the affected community.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

May 8, 2008, 11:15 AM

Post #39 of 53 (1274 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia <aphaia [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to
>> have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason
>> to oppose strongly your idea.
>>
> May you read my emails again and find where I said so? I proposed
> forming of Meta ArbCom, as well as I mentioned that VC may act as a
> *temporary* Meta ArbCom because we need some body to start to deal
> with sediments of problems before it is too late.
>
There is no agreement that Wikicouncil will at any time act as a
"temporary Meta Arbcom".Doing so would compromise any value that such a
Council may have. It is conceivable that Wikicouncil could participate
in establishing such a body, but that task has a fairly low priority in
my mind. Once established, the members of such a Meta Arbcom, should
not also be members of Wikicouncil.
>> I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be
>> promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from
>> English Wikipedia Arbcom?
>>
> If some body/group/community makes some unreasonable decision (en.wp
> ArbCom is not the first, not the last; jp.wp community decision for
> your block is much more problematic because it was, AFAIK,
> *community's* decision, not ArbCom's decision) -- there are ways for
> working on making them more reasonable. However, without Meta ArbCom
> and/or VC we don't have a regular method for that.
>
> The other option is to give global power to local ArbComs. If one
> ArbCom is not reasonable, other ArbComs will notice that...
One important factor in this is what one considers to be the role of any
Arbcom. My view of the Arbcom, based on its earliest incarnations, is
that it has some kind of appellate jurisdiction. It does not itself
initiate disciplinary action; that remains the role of a project's own
community. This has nothing to do with VC.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

millosh at gmail

May 9, 2008, 9:40 AM

Post #40 of 53 (1272 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:58 PM, White Cat
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko [at] gmail> wrote:
> What is this tr.wikipedia claim based on? I'd like to hear the logic behind
> it. After all you would not be making baseless claims, right?

http://millosh.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/stewards-and-vogons/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

birgitte_sb at yahoo

May 9, 2008, 9:42 AM

Post #41 of 53 (1271 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

--- On Thu, 5/8/08, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko [at] gmail> wrote:

> From: White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko [at] gmail>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008, 12:50 PM
> You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you
> mean right?
>
> The local community should decide weather or not to give a
> second chance to
> the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu
> the disruptive
> user.
>
> When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts
> editing another
> wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts
> to edit
> en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly
> who they are
> dealing with.

En.WS can figure out if they are disruptive or not without help. "Disruption" is as often as not due to the context of the situation. I don't believe that users are inherently disruptive, but only become disruptive when they are a bad fit with the culture of the wiki. Just because someone cannot handle writing a neutral encyclopedia article on abortion on en.WP does not mean they will cause problems if they come to en.WS and transcribe US court descisions on abortion. The sister projects all have different angles and sometimes a person is just a bad fit for a certain angle. Users should be banned for disruption where they cause problems not where they haven't.

Birgitte SB

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

pdsanchez at gmail

May 9, 2008, 9:48 AM

Post #42 of 53 (1274 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:55 AM, White Cat
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko [at] gmail> wrote:
> 2) Do not quote me without permission. Publishing IRC logs publicaly may get
> you banned from all Wikimedia channels - or so it says when you join
> channels. Frankly it is very rude.
>
> - White Cat
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> I want to remember that this thread started because White Cat wanted
>> Jack Merridew blocked *by stewards* in projects where he edited and
>> without obvious (according to several of us who looked) disruption
>>
>> In his words:
>> >> Consider the scenario where a disruptive user is indefinitely blocked on
>> a
>> >> particular wiki. He decides to have a "fresh start" in causing the same
>> >> slow-paced disruption on all sister projects one by one...
>>
>> Yes, someone else pointed that trouble users will eventually prove
>> themselves and get blocked, that's true, nothing new is needed.
>>

I'm not publishing logs, dear cat, and I'm allowed to quote, like it
or not. That is from this very PUBLIC list, see top of the thread. So,
please drop your threats about IRC blocks.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

May 9, 2008, 11:18 AM

Post #43 of 53 (1263 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

White Cat wrote:
> You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right?
>
Quite the contrary. While I'm not a great supporter of global blocking
in the first place, it is clear that Brian understands the problems.
Your excess of enthusiasm for the proposal suggests that with friends
like you the proposal needs no enemies
> The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to
> the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive
> user.
>
We are not talking about "second" chances but first chances. Assuming
good faith includes treating a project newbie on the basis of what he
does in a project, not on the basis of his being on somebody's prejudice
list. As Birgitte has stated, Wikisource regulars are quite capable of
recognizing a disruptive users when they come along. I assure you that
those who seek to impose their personal POVs about the rules or import
some other project's robotic solutions are far more disruptive than
vandals, spammers and trolls.
> When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another
> wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit
> en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are
> dealing with.
> -- White Cat
>
The local community knows exactly what he is doing by reading his posts
in that community's project. If Wikiquote found some reason to ban the
user there, that is entirely their business.

Ec
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Brian McNeil wrote:
>>
>>> I will start by highlighting that I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews.
>>>
>>> This means I am on the CheckUser-l mailing list and have seen the discussion
>>>
>>> that has privately taken place about a global blocking mechanism.
>>>
>>> My understanding of the requested functionality is that it is primarily for
>>>
>>> the most irritating IP addresses. We're not talking about someone who might
>>>
>>> reform if they go to another project, we're talking about people who create
>>>
>>> dozens of socks and take a perverse joy in making people clean up after
>>> them. The people who project hop in the hope of vandalising undetected; the
>>>
>>> really persistent vandals, not the strongly opinionated. We're talking
>>> "Willy on Wheels", not "Wendy on Wako".
>>>
>> If you build an environment of trust this concept would go through more
>> easily, but the enthusiasm that some have shown for the proposal is
>> worrisome. There is no confidence that everyone advantaged by this tool
>> would use it wisely.
>>
>> It is one thing to say that the tool would only be used against the most
>> flagrant violators; it is quite another to believe that everyone will so
>> limit himself in using a process which must often be performed in
>> secrecy.
>>
>> The autonomy of projects is important, and members of projects need to
>> feel that the autonomy will not be compromised by others making
>> decisions without consultation with the members of the affected community.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia at verizon

May 9, 2008, 5:30 PM

Post #44 of 53 (1273 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

White Cat wrote:
> Maybe a foundation committee to cut through the bureaucracy when necesary...
> I do not think this is a task for stewards.
>
A committee to cut through bureaucracy? Isn't that an oxymoron?

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

moreschiwikiman at hotmail

May 10, 2008, 1:47 PM

Post #45 of 53 (1250 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised.

CM

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 11:18:44 -0700
> From: saintonge [at] telus
> To: foundation-l [at] lists
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
>
> White Cat wrote:
> > You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right?
> >
> Quite the contrary. While I'm not a great supporter of global blocking
> in the first place, it is clear that Brian understands the problems.
> Your excess of enthusiasm for the proposal suggests that with friends
> like you the proposal needs no enemies
> > The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to
> > the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive
> > user.
> >
> We are not talking about "second" chances but first chances. Assuming
> good faith includes treating a project newbie on the basis of what he
> does in a project, not on the basis of his being on somebody's prejudice
> list. As Birgitte has stated, Wikisource regulars are quite capable of
> recognizing a disruptive users when they come along. I assure you that
> those who seek to impose their personal POVs about the rules or import
> some other project's robotic solutions are far more disruptive than
> vandals, spammers and trolls.
> > When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another
> > wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit
> > en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are
> > dealing with.
> > -- White Cat
> >
> The local community knows exactly what he is doing by reading his posts
> in that community's project. If Wikiquote found some reason to ban the
> user there, that is entirely their business.
>
> Ec

_________________________________________________________________
Win Indiana Jones prizes with Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

May 10, 2008, 2:04 PM

Post #46 of 53 (1248 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

2008/5/10 Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman [at] hotmail>:

> Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised.

Most of the discussion I know of happens on checkuser-l, which is of
course extremely private. I don't know if a public noticeboard would
actually be helpful. The stewards do most of the cross-wiki vandal
chasing - stewards, what do you think?

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

moreschiwikiman at hotmail

May 10, 2008, 2:14 PM

Post #47 of 53 (1251 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

Naturally. But half the time, when dealing with cross-wiki disruption, we don't need checkuser. It's something basic: the same hoax on pl and en, or the same crankery being pushed by obviously the same peopl on fr and en. Not everyone uses IRC, which seems to be currently the fastest (only?) way to talk to someone from these other projects.

CM

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

> Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 22:04:56 +0100
> From: dgerard [at] gmail
> To: foundation-l [at] lists
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
>
> 2008/5/10 Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman [at] hotmail>:
>
> > Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised.
>
>
> Most of the discussion I know of happens on checkuser-l, which is of
> course extremely private. I don't know if a public noticeboard would
> actually be helpful. The stewards do most of the cross-wiki vandal
> chasing - stewards, what do you think?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_________________________________________________________________
Be a Hero and Win with Iron Man
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000009ukm/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

May 10, 2008, 2:16 PM

Post #48 of 53 (1269 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

2008/5/10 Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman [at] hotmail>:
> From: dgerard [at] gmail
>> 2008/5/10 Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman [at] hotmail>:

>> > Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised.

>> Most of the discussion I know of happens on checkuser-l, which is of
>> course extremely private. I don't know if a public noticeboard would
>> actually be helpful. The stewards do most of the cross-wiki vandal
>> chasing - stewards, what do you think?

> Naturally. But half the time, when dealing with cross-wiki disruption, we don't need checkuser. It's something basic: the same hoax on pl and en, or the same crankery being pushed by obviously the same peopl on fr and en. Not everyone uses IRC, which seems to be currently the fastest (only?) way to talk to someone from these other projects.

By "I don't know" I mean I really have no idea :-) Might be of benefit.

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geo.plrd at yahoo

May 10, 2008, 6:00 PM

Post #49 of 53 (1224 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

This actually sounds like a good idea. Keeps Willy on Wheels from becoming Guillermo en Carro.

----- Original Message ----
From: Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman [at] hotmail>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:47:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption

Apologies if this has already been proposed - I haven't read all the thread - but what would be really helpful is a noticeboard on meta for admins and trusted users from all projects to confer about users whose disruptive activities span multiple projects. Such a thing may exist already, but if so it doesn't seem to have been very widely publicised.

CM

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 11:18:44 -0700
> From: saintonge [at] telus
> To: foundation-l [at] lists
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption
>
> White Cat wrote:
> > You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right?
> >�
> Quite the contrary.� While I'm not a great supporter of global blocking
> in the first place, it is clear that Brian understands the problems.�
> Your excess of enthusiasm for the proposal suggests that with friends
> like you the proposal needs no enemies
> > The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to
> > the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive
> > user.
> >�
> We are not talking about "second" chances but first chances.� Assuming
> good faith includes treating a project newbie on the basis of what he
> does in a project, not on the basis of his being on somebody's prejudice
> list. As Birgitte has stated, Wikisource regulars are quite capable of
> recognizing a disruptive users when they come along.� I assure you that
> those who seek to impose their personal POVs about the rules or import
> some other project's robotic solutions are far more disruptive than
> vandals, spammers and trolls.
> > When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another
> > wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit
> > en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are
> > dealing with.
> >� � -- White Cat
> >�
> The local community knows exactly what he is doing by reading his posts
> in that community's project.� If Wikiquote found some reason to ban the
> user there, that is entirely their business.
>
> Ec

_________________________________________________________________
Win Indiana Jones prizes with Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

May 10, 2008, 9:30 PM

Post #50 of 53 (1247 views)
Permalink

Re: Dealing with interwiki disruption [In reply to]

Christiano Moreschi wrote:
> Naturally. But half the time, when dealing with cross-wiki disruption, we don't need checkuser. It's something basic: the same hoax on pl and en, or the same crankery being pushed by obviously the same peopl on fr and en. Not everyone uses IRC, which seems to be currently the fastest (only?) way to talk to someone from these other projects.
>
>
At the risk of stating the obvious, anything but the silliest and
ineffectual forms of disruption on projects in different languages
requires a good understanding of those languages. For a hoax to be
credible it needs to reflect reasonable linguistic sophistication, and
an ability to at least mount a coherent early level defence of the
hoax. Native English speakers are notorious for their lack of skills in
other languages, so if there is going to be any significant disruptive
behaviour from any one individual the other language will more likely
have been the first target and English the secondary target.

Smaller sister projects in the same language tend not to have the same
high profile as the Wikipedia for that language. They mostly fly below
the disruptor's radar.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2 3

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads