Mailing List Archive

White Cat hett schreven:
> Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being disruptive
> on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the
> same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other
> wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he or
> she be treated.
>
> I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become the
> source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
>
> - White Cat

That should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting,
shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not they
won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?

Marcus Buck

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

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...

All wikis are independent, yes. But when dealing with interwiki disruption,
this should not get in the way of collaboration between wikis in dealing
with disruptive users.

Interwiki vandals for example are promptly dealt with with or without this
collaboration but other kinds of disruption, particularly slow paced ones
need such collaboration.

We currently lack such a median and communication between wikis to deal with
interwiki issues such as interwiki disruption.

- White Cat

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Marcus Buck <me@marcusbuck.org> wrote:

> White Cat hett schreven:
> > Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being
> disruptive
> > on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the
> > same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other
> > wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he
> or
> > she be treated.
> >
> > I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become
> the
> > source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
> >
> > - White Cat
>
> That should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting,
> shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not they
> won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?
>
> Marcus Buck
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/4/24 Marcus Buck <me@marcusbuck.org>:
> White Cat hett schreven:

> > Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being disruptive
> > on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the
> > same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other
> > wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he or
> > she be treated.
> > I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become the
> > source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.

> That should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting,
> shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not they
> won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?


Depends on what the person is doing. I referred previously to how the
main reason for global IP blocking is so as to deal with persistent
cross-wiki vandals; many take to trying to harass people (e.g.
blocking admins, previous wiki-foes) on other wikis, vandalising in
their names, etc. (SUL helps with this, but many targets are not
admins.) The cases I'm thinking of are bad editors who are
sufficiently unambiguously vandalising and/or harassing that a steward
could clearly act, for instance.


- d.

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

Well, with GlobalBlocking, we can now block abusive IP addresses
across multiple wikis. Blocking their account is still a local act, until
a "Block Global Account" extension gets made (I believe someone is
working on it, but I could be wrong?)

-Chad

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:27 PM, White Cat
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...
>
> All wikis are independent, yes. But when dealing with interwiki disruption,
> this should not get in the way of collaboration between wikis in dealing
> with disruptive users.
>
> Interwiki vandals for example are promptly dealt with with or without this
> collaboration but other kinds of disruption, particularly slow paced ones
> need such collaboration.
>
> We currently lack such a median and communication between wikis to deal with
> interwiki issues such as interwiki disruption.
>
> - White Cat
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Marcus Buck <me@marcusbuck.org> wrote:
>
> > White Cat hett schreven:
> > > Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being
> > disruptive
> > > on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the
> > > same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other
> > > wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he
> > or
> > > she be treated.
> > >
> > > I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become
> > the
> > > source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
> > >
> > > - White Cat
> >
> > That should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting,
> > shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not they
> > won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?
> >
> > Marcus Buck
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, with GlobalBlocking, we can now block abusive IP addresses
> across multiple wikis. Blocking their account is still a local act, until
> a "Block Global Account" extension gets made (I believe someone is
> working on it, but I could be wrong?)
>
> -Chad
>

This thread is about White Cat wanting to get Jack Merridew on
simple.wikiquote and simple.wiktionary becuse he feels stalked due
that JM always votes contrary to him and sometimes he edits non
mainspace pages where Cat also edited.

He went to stewards channel earlier today demanding we take measures
about it. After 4 of us refused, he ended up putting on ignore (as
usual) pretty much anyone who spoke and started namecalling werdna
(who is precisely working on global block) for not agreeing with him.

Global blocking won't be used for petty personal disputes. And for
what I gather, it will work only on IPs.

And no, "being blocked on a wiki" doesn't automatically grant the
right to request same blocks in all other wikis

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

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:52 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/4/24 Marcus Buck <me@marcusbuck.org>:
>
> > White Cat hett schreven:
>
> > > on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the
> > > same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other
> > > wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he or
> > > she be treated.
> > > I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become the
> > > source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
>
>
> > That should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting,
> > shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not they
> > won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?
>
>
> Depends on what the person is doing. I referred previously to how the
> main reason for global IP blocking is so as to deal with persistent
> cross-wiki vandals; many take to trying to harass people (e.g.
> blocking admins, previous wiki-foes) on other wikis, vandalising in
> their names, etc. (SUL helps with this, but many targets are not
> admins.) The cases I'm thinking of are bad editors who are
> sufficiently unambiguously vandalising and/or harassing that a steward
> could clearly act, for instance.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
Indeed, I don't think White Cat's example is the purpose of this -
this is for cases of clear-cut vandalism across wikis - Examples
include the time I went and scrubbed "Wikipedia is Communism" off the
Navajo Wikipedia on a couple dozen pages (including the main page!).
A global block is needed in a case like that.

WilyD

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

White Cat wrote:
> Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being disruptive
> on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the
> same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other
> wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he or
> she be treated.
>
> I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become the
> source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
>
> - White Cat
>

Based upon my own personal experience in dealing with highly disruptive
users on Wikipedia that also edited on Wikibooks.... each project
certainly has its own personality in terms of encouraging or
discouraging disruptive behavior, and how a user acts or is reacted to
on one project isn't necessarily the same on another.

In one case that I remember, a fairly active user on both Wikipedia and
Wikibooks was permanently blocked on Wikipedia.... where he had been
more or less quite cooperative on Wikibooks. I kept close tabs on his
account (as an administrator) on Wikibooks, and didn't see any serious
problems... intending to leave him alone. Real and positive
contributions were made to the Wikibooks project by this user as well.
And yes, I did read through the flamefest on Wikipedia that he was
involved with.

Unfortunately, one of the Wikimedia board members (I won't name names
here as it is buried in the past) decided to permanently block his
account on en.wikibooks as well with the only rationale and
justification being that he was disruptive on Wikipedia. At the time, I
strongly considered reverting the block.... and in hindsight I should
have. Frankly in this case I was intimidated due to the fact that it
was a board member who performed the block. Certainly no discussion
took place within the Wikibooks community on this individual.

I don't know what could have happened had this user been allowed to
grown and mature on Wikibooks for awhile, but then again we won't ever
know. That is something you have to consider when trying to get
vindictive against some users is that they tend to be the kids that they
are, and they simply need to grow up. Sometimes getting blocked by one
project might wake them up to the fact that they have to play nice with
others and try to be much more cooperative on the other projects.

On the other hand, if a systematic pattern of abuse and disruption is
occurring on multiple projects, a much more global block might be in
order. I have seen vandals get bored with vandalizing Wikipedia with
the hope that the other sister projects might not revert their actions
so quickly. But then again, they are using throw-away accounts
usually. The issue here is about those users who have made some
meaningful and useful additions to the projects, but are simultaneously
enflaming conversations on talk pages and otherwise being disruptive.
Anybody reading this list knows precisely this kind of user.... as I'm
sure nearly everybody reading this list has likely even been accused of
being such a user at one point or another if you have done any kind of
significant impact on any of the projects.

-- Robert Horning

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

At 15:30 -0400 24/4/08, Chad wrote:
>Well, with GlobalBlocking, we can now block abusive IP addresses
>across multiple wikis. Blocking their account is still a local act, until
>a "Block Global Account" extension gets made (I believe someone is
>working on it, but I could be wrong?)
>
>-Chad

Surely the nasty person can create multiple identities across multiple wikis?

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly@pobox.com///

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

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.

- White Cat

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:52 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2008/4/24 Marcus Buck <me@marcusbuck.org>:
> >
> > > White Cat hett schreven:
> >
> > > > Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being
> disruptive
> > > > on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it.
> If the
> > > > same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for
> on other
> > > > wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how
> should he or
> > > > she be treated.
> > > > I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user
> become the
> > > > source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to
> do.
> >
> >
> > > That should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting,
> > > shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not
> they
> > > won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?
> >
> >
> > Depends on what the person is doing. I referred previously to how the
> > main reason for global IP blocking is so as to deal with persistent
> > cross-wiki vandals; many take to trying to harass people (e.g.
> > blocking admins, previous wiki-foes) on other wikis, vandalising in
> > their names, etc. (SUL helps with this, but many targets are not
> > admins.) The cases I'm thinking of are bad editors who are
> > sufficiently unambiguously vandalising and/or harassing that a steward
> > could clearly act, for instance.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> >
> >
> Indeed, I don't think White Cat's example is the purpose of this -
> this is for cases of clear-cut vandalism across wikis - Examples
> include the time I went and scrubbed "Wikipedia is Communism" off the
> Navajo Wikipedia on a couple dozen pages (including the main page!).
> A global block is needed in a case like that.
>
> WilyD
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

White Cat hett schreven:
> 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.
>
So you suggest to create an Interpol for Wikimedia projects?
I don't think, that blocks on Wikimedia projects are comparable to
"crimes". What kind of "communication among wikis" do you propose exactly?

Marcus Buck


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

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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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@telus.net> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

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@gmail.com> 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@telus.net> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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@telus.net>
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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@gmail.com]
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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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@telus.net>
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



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

What you describe already goes on with Checkuser-l. For reasons that should
be apparent this communication is confidential.


Brian McNeil

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of White Cat
Sent: 06 May 2008 06:23
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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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@telus.net>
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


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

Through my experience with an user, any public channel may not work if
the user in the midst of the issue prefers private communications, IRC
instead of WP:VP or its equivalent, or other dedicated forum and
stated he won't take care of process transparency.

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:47 AM, mike.lifeguard
<mike.lifeguard@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com]
> 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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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@telus.net>
> > 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Wily D 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.
Of course, getting out of the heat, and proving your good faith
elsewhere separates them from the really harmful people. The regulars
on other projects will be more inclined to treat the person more
objectively. I have encountered Poetlister on Wikisource, and had a
sharp difference of opinion with her, but even though I disagreed with
her, I had no reason to question her motives. The learning curve for
people with strong opinions is not an easy one, and those who are too
willing to find fault with them would do better putting a small effort
into searching for common ground.

If Poetlister's sin was with the use of sockpuppets did anybody begin by
approaching her in a respectful manner about this serious sin?

Ec

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

White Cat wrote:
> 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 evidence do you have of this "arrogant tone" except to the extent
that it comes from en:wp? If admins from en:wp want to be believed on
sister projects they would do well to abandon their love of kangaroo
justice.
> 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.
>
We don't really need that. Why should my approach to a newbie be
tainted by such prejudicial material? The ones that are really bad will
soon get noticed without the need for such a condescending noticeboard.
In my years with Wiktionary and Wikisource I have found timewarping
admins to be a bigger problem.
> 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.

Ec

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

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> Wily D 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.

For the record, Poetlister had begun to accumulated her good conduct
*before* her banning from English Wikipedia editing.

> Of course, getting out of the heat, and proving your good faith
> elsewhere separates them from the really harmful people. The regulars
> on other projects will be more inclined to treat the person more
> objectively. I have encountered Poetlister on Wikisource, and had a
> sharp difference of opinion with her, but even though I disagreed with
> her, I had no reason to question her motives. The learning curve for
> people with strong opinions is not an easy one, and those who are too
> willing to find fault with them would do better putting a small effort
> into searching for common ground.

Your opinion is largely overlapped with mine. She has a distinct
character; strong and keen sense and preferences, some strong opinion
and no person easily to be persuaded. I disagree with her on some
points and have no expectations those differences may be dissolved
near soon. It doesn't however hinder our cooperations. On the other
things, perhaps more than disagreed ones, we agree happily and enjoy
working together.

And she is so integrated as admin that she doesn't mind performing the
actions she as individual opposes. She keeps articles she had voted
for deletion and deleted the one she had voted for keeping, if it was
the community consensus. And we English Wikiquotians are sure there
was no problematic/puppet-smelling votes when she was the minority in
her opinion.

> If Poetlister's sin was with the use of sockpuppets did anybody begin by
> approaching her in a respectful manner about this serious sin?

I don't know if someone approached her, but I am not sure if it is
necessary right now. Poetlister herself has denied to be someone's
sock, I heard, and she as Wikiquotian is known the editor far from
sockpupetting. Now English Wikipedia Arbcom says she agreed not to use
open proxies anymore. We need much further than those things?

Cheers,


> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

For those wanting to keep track of Bugzilla/SVN, the
relevant bugs are 8710 (originally split the CU logs),
13789 (requesting they be re-merged), and revision
29527.

-Chad

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

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@gmail.com> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Aphaia <aphaia@gmail.com> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l