Advanced
Mailing List Archive

Mailing List Archive

  1. Home >
  2. Wikipedia>
  3. Foundation
1 2  View All
"Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects
cary at wikimedia
Aug 11, 2008, 12:57 PM
Post #1 of 26 (15578 views)
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

I'm sending this email to foundation-l because there are a couple of
situations evolving in our projects that I'm having a rough time dealing
with, notably because the issues raised involve matters touching on
privacy and the autonomy of the Wikimedia projects.

People know my interest lies with the well being of the volunteers of
our projects and our projects in general. It's because of that interest
that when I am sent issues about a dispute involving members of the
community I have to look to the well-being of the projects themselves
and see how this is being impacted. Sometimes the issue involves the
interests of one project over another. Often, the issues are only
resolved by bringing the light of day to the matter and allow the
broader community at large to discuss the issues.

Scenario 1:
An active user with an unusual username on the English Wikipedia has,
for whatever reason, never taken advantage of SUL. An account opens up
on a much project which is, given the name, implausibly anything other
than an impostor of the English Wikipedia account. It does, however,
have apparently useful contributions (no difficult matter on this wiki
if one is familiar with it); and the local community, while believing
that the account is an impostor account seems to be unwilling to resolve
the situation without demanding that the user come to the smaller
project and ask for usurpation. Obviously, we wouldn't want to force
the issue with an autonomous project.

How should this be addressed?

Does the user have any other option than editing the smaller wiki and
adding the Username Change request, which basically subjects the user to
his/her IP information being revealed to additional individuals, not of
his/her own wiki?

Scenario 2:
A user has been banned on enwiki. The user has "outed" psuedonymous
individuals via his blog and threads Wikipedia Review by compiling
information put together elsewhere on the net. He has taken to another
wiki and under the auspices of the local wiki's policy, has put back
links to pages which have links to pages (sometimes several pages deep)
which "outs" the individuals.

Is this a violation of our privacy policy as it exists? If not, how can
we best address the needs of the local projects? We have to assume the
user is sincere about his project, because AGF is a core principle. If
he is sincere, can he not contribute in a fashion that doesn't create so
much hardship on other contributors?

Of course, we cannot gauge the sincerity, but if he is not, what then?
Does allowing an enwiki user to game another of our projects create long
term trouble for the wiki in the future (exportation of wikidrama from
enwiki to another project). Does the foundation or the community at
large have an obligation to ensuring this doesn't happen?

- ----
These are but two issues which may or may not deserve the light of the
community at large. I'd like to know the range of opinions and help in
determining where the foundation's responsibility ends, my
responsibility as VolCo, and the meta community (given that this
involves cross-wiki issues) at large.

- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601
Fax: 415.882.0495

E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkigmakACgkQyQg4JSymDYle1ACgntiPP8Ztmtl5d9lbdL+lQ3Qw
SWoAn1O3tK7/z08f7x9o9PKgWeJ8gmJI
=LEaJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
gerard.meijssen at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 1:18 PM
Post #2 of 26 (15394 views)
Permalink
Hoi,
As the examples given are all about the English Wikipedia it is clear that
the over involvement of the organisation is the problem itself. As far as i
am concerned the organisation has only a remit to deal with projects and the
policy of projects when it is in line with what has been accepted as an
universal policy. If it is not, it takes imho a board decision to make a
policy one that is to be applied universally. This is in my opinion
something that should only happen with extreme reluctance.

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

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

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

Thanks,
GerardM

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

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm sending this email to foundation-l because there are a couple of
> situations evolving in our projects that I'm having a rough time dealing
> with, notably because the issues raised involve matters touching on
> privacy and the autonomy of the Wikimedia projects.
>
> People know my interest lies with the well being of the volunteers of
> our projects and our projects in general. It's because of that interest
> that when I am sent issues about a dispute involving members of the
> community I have to look to the well-being of the projects themselves
> and see how this is being impacted. Sometimes the issue involves the
> interests of one project over another. Often, the issues are only
> resolved by bringing the light of day to the matter and allow the
> broader community at large to discuss the issues.
>
> Scenario 1:
> An active user with an unusual username on the English Wikipedia has,
> for whatever reason, never taken advantage of SUL. An account opens up
> on a much project which is, given the name, implausibly anything other
> than an impostor of the English Wikipedia account. It does, however,
> have apparently useful contributions (no difficult matter on this wiki
> if one is familiar with it); and the local community, while believing
> that the account is an impostor account seems to be unwilling to resolve
> the situation without demanding that the user come to the smaller
> project and ask for usurpation. Obviously, we wouldn't want to force
> the issue with an autonomous project.
>
> How should this be addressed?
>
> Does the user have any other option than editing the smaller wiki and
> adding the Username Change request, which basically subjects the user to
> his/her IP information being revealed to additional individuals, not of
> his/her own wiki?
>
> Scenario 2:
> A user has been banned on enwiki. The user has "outed" psuedonymous
> individuals via his blog and threads Wikipedia Review by compiling
> information put together elsewhere on the net. He has taken to another
> wiki and under the auspices of the local wiki's policy, has put back
> links to pages which have links to pages (sometimes several pages deep)
> which "outs" the individuals.
>
> Is this a violation of our privacy policy as it exists? If not, how can
> we best address the needs of the local projects? We have to assume the
> user is sincere about his project, because AGF is a core principle. If
> he is sincere, can he not contribute in a fashion that doesn't create so
> much hardship on other contributors?
>
> Of course, we cannot gauge the sincerity, but if he is not, what then?
> Does allowing an enwiki user to game another of our projects create long
> term trouble for the wiki in the future (exportation of wikidrama from
> enwiki to another project). Does the foundation or the community at
> large have an obligation to ensuring this doesn't happen?
>
> - ----
> These are but two issues which may or may not deserve the light of the
> community at large. I'd like to know the range of opinions and help in
> determining where the foundation's responsibility ends, my
> responsibility as VolCo, and the meta community (given that this
> involves cross-wiki issues) at large.
>
> - --
> Cary Bass
> Volunteer Coordinator
>
> Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
> Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601
> Fax: 415.882.0495
>
> E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkigmakACgkQyQg4JSymDYle1ACgntiPP8Ztmtl5d9lbdL+lQ3Qw
> SWoAn1O3tK7/z08f7x9o9PKgWeJ8gmJI
> =LEaJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@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
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
szilagyi at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 1:34 PM
Post #3 of 26 (15427 views)
Permalink
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Cary Bass <cary@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Scenario 2:
> A user has been banned on enwiki. The user has "outed" psuedonymous
> individuals via his blog and threads Wikipedia Review by compiling
> information put together elsewhere on the net. He has taken to another
> wiki and under the auspices of the local wiki's policy, has put back
> links to pages which have links to pages (sometimes several pages deep)
> which "outs" the individuals.
>

Just an additional note to what Cary wrote--this Scenario 2 in turn then
spilled over to a separate third project, where users of the first project
arrived in wide numbers to "vote" in an election of a Checkuser whose home
project was the first project mentioned in the scenario. En.wiki users
arrived on the third project after having in many cases little to no prior
involvement in that third project, to actively vote on the election of a
user who was primarily active on the first one and who had allegedly taken a
side in that initial dispute that had nothing at all to do with the third
project. So that scenario #2 actually impacted three projects, not just
two...

- Joe
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
innocentkiller at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 1:54 PM
Post #4 of 26 (15729 views)
Permalink
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> There are many motherfuckers, typically they have someone calling them dad
> or daddy.
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>

That last comment was not needed. I politely ask you to either use
different words
or retract the comment entirely.

Thanks,

-Chad

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
nawrich at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 1:57 PM
Post #5 of 26 (15426 views)
Permalink
Joe's elaboration makes the issue hopelessly convoluted, but what would
obviously
be useful in this case is an organized way of dealing with inter-wiki
problems.

To SUL specifically, usurping a contributor on a project has to be the
decision of
that project and its policies, so long as they do not outright conflict with
Foundation
policies. The SUL implementation definitely suffered from some confusion and
disorganization in this regard - there was quite a scandal on the English
Wikipedia
when a steward performed a SUL usurpation on behalf of an active fr.wp user
(if I remember the details correctly). The outcome of the discussion on
en.wp
was clear - usurping en.wp contributors required the assent of an en.wp
bureaucrat,
who must abide by en.wp rules.

On the second issue, the privacy policy (as you know) governs the
Foundation's
storage and release of personal information. I don't think there is a global
"outing"
policy, so its up to the local community to proscribe and police that sort
of
undesirable activity. A bunch of en.wp users showing up to vote in a
checkuser
election on another project seems strange and wrong, but again its down to
the suffrage policy of that project to control such events.

Its a tough thing, to see conduct on one project that clearly violates the
norms
you've come to expect through your experience in another community. The
structure
and ethos of the projects has developed, though, such that we can't impose
any
but the most basic norms on those communities - or, at any rate, we haven't.

Further policy centralisation is definitely something to consider, and it
seems to me
to be inevitable over time anyway. Some of the policy changes on meta
recently have
seemed to represent the views of the "wider community" at the expense of ,
or
without regard to, the views of the "local communities." If you want to
further that
movement, then the way to start is to propose new and well focused policies
on meta.

Nathan

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Cary Bass <cary@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Scenario 2:
> > A user has been banned on enwiki. The user has "outed" psuedonymous
> > individuals via his blog and threads Wikipedia Review by compiling
> > information put together elsewhere on the net. He has taken to another
> > wiki and under the auspices of the local wiki's policy, has put back
> > links to pages which have links to pages (sometimes several pages deep)
> > which "outs" the individuals.
> >
>
> Just an additional note to what Cary wrote--this Scenario 2 in turn then
> spilled over to a separate third project, where users of the first project
> arrived in wide numbers to "vote" in an election of a Checkuser whose home
> project was the first project mentioned in the scenario. En.wiki users
> arrived on the third project after having in many cases little to no prior
> involvement in that third project, to actively vote on the election of a
> user who was primarily active on the first one and who had allegedly taken
> a
> side in that initial dispute that had nothing at all to do with the third
> project. So that scenario #2 actually impacted three projects, not just
> two...
>
> - Joe
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
gerard.meijssen at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 2:11 PM
Post #6 of 26 (15439 views)
Permalink
Hoi,
I have been in a discussion about having swear words in dictionaries. One
point is that many people do not know what is actually said in "swear
words". In my opinion many of these are not understood as a consequence.
Motherfucker is a good example. In my opinion, it is best to debunk swear
words, make sure that they are understood as it is the best way to deflate
their effectiveness.

Some people have these nice little quotations at the end of their mails ...
By the way Chad, are you an only child ?
Thanks,
GerardM


On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > There are many motherfuckers, typically they have someone calling them
> dad
> > or daddy.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
>
> That last comment was not needed. I politely ask you to either use
> different words
> or retract the comment entirely.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Chad
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
gerard.meijssen at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 2:16 PM
Post #7 of 26 (15433 views)
Permalink
Hoi,
I have been in a discussion about having swear words in dictionaries. One
point is that many people do not know what is actually said in "swear
words". In my opinion many of these are not understood as a consequence.
Motherfucker is a good example. In my opinion, it is best to debunk swear
words, make sure that they are understood as it is the best way to deflate
their effectiveness.

Some people have these nice little quotations at the end of their mails ...
By the way Chad, are you an only child ?
Thanks,
GerardM


On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > There are many motherfuckers, typically they have someone calling them
> dad
> > or daddy.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
>
> That last comment was not needed. I politely ask you to either use
> different words
> or retract the comment entirely.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Chad
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
gerard.meijssen at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 2:18 PM
Post #8 of 26 (15488 views)
Permalink
Hoi,
I have been in a discussion about having swear words in dictionaries. One
point is that many people do not know what is actually said in "swear
words". In my opinion many of these are not understood as a consequence.
Motherfucker is a good example. In my opinion, it is best to debunk swear
words, make sure that they are understood as it is the best way to deflate
their effectiveness.

Some people have these nice little quotations at the end of their mails ...
By the way Chad, are you an only child ?
Thanks,
GerardM


On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > There are many motherfuckers, typically they have someone calling them
> dad
> > or daddy.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
>
> That last comment was not needed. I politely ask you to either use
> different words
> or retract the comment entirely.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Chad
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
mike.lifeguard at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 2:43 PM
Post #9 of 26 (15423 views)
Permalink
>The outcome of the discussion on
>en.wp
>was clear - usurping en.wp contributors required the assent of an en.wp
>bureaucrat,
>who must abide by en.wp rules.
Luckily, there are many projects which do not have such a policy.

>so its up to the local community to proscribe and police that sort
>of
>undesirable activity.
Luckily, the wiki in question, and indeed most wikis, do not have a rule or
guideline on this issue (though I believe it is fairly straightforward).

>A bunch of en.wp users showing up to vote in a
>checkuser
>election on another project seems strange and wrong, but again its down to
>the suffrage policy of that project to control such events.
Luckily, the wiki in question doesn't have a suffrage policy.

Whether this lack of policy/rule/guideline/whatever is a problem is
debatable. For example, English Wikibooks has not suffered for lack of a
renaming policy (or blocking policy for that matter!).

In other cases, a user may feel their hands are tied because there is no
policy which says "This is the right thing to do." In cases where policy is
lacking, good judgment must be used.

When good judgment does not prevail, there is a problem. Those who whine
about wikis not having a certain policy should realize that that situation
is not in and of itself a problem. This applies as much on a single project
as on multiple projects. We simply do not need a global policy for
everything - efforts to do so will largely fail.

That said, the issues raised by Cary are real, and we need to discuss how
best to deal with them. My point here is to warn that writing a global
policy for every niche where no policy lives may not be the best way
forward.

Mike


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
swatjester at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 4:01 PM
Post #10 of 26 (15404 views)
Permalink
Gerard, you could easily substitute any other project for "english
wikipedia" in these scenarios. Even in scenario two, as Wikipedia Review has
a German Wikipedia section. So, this isn't something that can just be
dismissed with a "Oh it's an en.wp thing"

-Dan

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:43 PM, mike.lifeguard <mike.lifeguard@gmail.com>wrote:

> >The outcome of the discussion on
> >en.wp
> >was clear - usurping en.wp contributors required the assent of an en.wp
> >bureaucrat,
> >who must abide by en.wp rules.
> Luckily, there are many projects which do not have such a policy.
>
> >so its up to the local community to proscribe and police that sort
> >of
> >undesirable activity.
> Luckily, the wiki in question, and indeed most wikis, do not have a rule or
> guideline on this issue (though I believe it is fairly straightforward).
>
> >A bunch of en.wp users showing up to vote in a
> >checkuser
> >election on another project seems strange and wrong, but again its down to
> >the suffrage policy of that project to control such events.
> Luckily, the wiki in question doesn't have a suffrage policy.
>
> Whether this lack of policy/rule/guideline/whatever is a problem is
> debatable. For example, English Wikibooks has not suffered for lack of a
> renaming policy (or blocking policy for that matter!).
>
> In other cases, a user may feel their hands are tied because there is no
> policy which says "This is the right thing to do." In cases where policy is
> lacking, good judgment must be used.
>
> When good judgment does not prevail, there is a problem. Those who whine
> about wikis not having a certain policy should realize that that situation
> is not in and of itself a problem. This applies as much on a single project
> as on multiple projects. We simply do not need a global policy for
> everything - efforts to do so will largely fail.
>
> That said, the issues raised by Cary are real, and we need to discuss how
> best to deal with them. My point here is to warn that writing a global
> policy for every niche where no policy lives may not be the best way
> forward.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Dan Rosenthal
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
geniice at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 4:02 PM
Post #11 of 26 (15420 views)
Permalink
2008/8/11 Cary Bass <cary@wikimedia.org>:
> Scenario 1:
> An active user with an unusual username on the English Wikipedia has,
> for whatever reason, never taken advantage of SUL. An account opens up
> on a much project which is, given the name, implausibly anything other
> than an impostor of the English Wikipedia account. It does, however,
> have apparently useful contributions (no difficult matter on this wiki
> if one is familiar with it); and the local community, while believing
> that the account is an impostor account seems to be unwilling to resolve
> the situation without demanding that the user come to the smaller
> project and ask for usurpation. Obviously, we wouldn't want to force
> the issue with an autonomous project.

Deal with if the "impostor" becomes a problem otherwise ignore.

> Scenario 2:
> A user has been banned on enwiki. The user has "outed" psuedonymous
> individuals via his blog and threads Wikipedia Review by compiling
> information put together elsewhere on the net. He has taken to another
> wiki and under the auspices of the local wiki's policy, has put back
> links to pages which have links to pages (sometimes several pages deep)
> which "outs" the individuals.
>
> Is this a violation of our privacy policy as it exists? If not, how can
> we best address the needs of the local projects? We have to assume the
> user is sincere about his project, because AGF is a core principle. If
> he is sincere, can he not contribute in a fashion that doesn't create so
> much hardship on other contributors?
>
> Of course, we cannot gauge the sincerity, but if he is not, what then?
> Does allowing an enwiki user to game another of our projects create long
> term trouble for the wiki in the future (exportation of wikidrama from
> enwiki to another project). Does the foundation or the community at
> large have an obligation to ensuring this doesn't happen?
>

En probably has a responsibility to warn. If that warning is ignored
there is not much to be done.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
thomas.dalton at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 4:17 PM
Post #12 of 26 (15412 views)
Permalink
> Does the user have any other option than editing the smaller wiki and
> adding the Username Change request, which basically subjects the user to
> his/her IP information being revealed to additional individuals, not of
> his/her own wiki?

A trusted user on the smaller project that is also present on enwiki
could forward the request. I don't really see the problem, though. A
few checkusers on another project finding out your IP address is
hardly a serious issue. We can't always cater to people's unreasonable
paranoia (where possible, sure, but it often isn't). I don't see what
the foundation has to do with it - they could be the one to forward
the request, but so could plenty of other people.

> Scenario 2:
> A user has been banned on enwiki. The user has "outed" psuedonymous
> individuals via his blog and threads Wikipedia Review by compiling
> information put together elsewhere on the net. He has taken to another
> wiki and under the auspices of the local wiki's policy, has put back
> links to pages which have links to pages (sometimes several pages deep)
> which "outs" the individuals.
>
> Is this a violation of our privacy policy as it exists? If not, how can
> we best address the needs of the local projects? We have to assume the
> user is sincere about his project, because AGF is a core principle. If
> he is sincere, can he not contribute in a fashion that doesn't create so
> much hardship on other contributors?

Was the banned user a checkuser? If so, then I don't see what the WMF
privacy policy has to do with it - they only had access to public
information. If they are a checkuser and have published information
gained through their checkuser privileges, then it's a pretty cut and
dry case.

As for the other project - it's common for banned users to be given a
second chance on another project. The other project can be warned by
anyone familiar with the case if they deem it necessary, there is no
need for WMF involvement. Whether or not to take action on that other
project is, of course, up to that project's community.

I really fail to see why this mailing list is being asked about these
scenarios, they seem pretty simple to me. Cary, some advice: It seems
the real issue here is that you see a problem and want to help but
feel restricted by the foundation's policy of non-interference.
Remember, you are still a member of the community and can offer advice
in that capacity. Just make it clear that it's not anything official,
and there shouldn't be a problem.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
meta.sj at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 4:24 PM
Post #13 of 26 (15439 views)
Permalink
I agree with Thomas on all points, including that cary should feel
comfortable acting as a community member (being clear to distinguish advice
as such).

There are two separate issues bright ou here:
* the issue of communicating a guideline or rule of thumb to all projects
(ways to have a cross-wiki discussion, about vandalism or checkuser or
other; which can be discussed on Meta as a starting point), and
* the issue of having cross-wiki policies (we do have a few, but it's not
that easy to figure out what they are or to propose new ones)

SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
thomas.dalton at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 4:29 PM
Post #14 of 26 (15401 views)
Permalink
> There are two separate issues bright ou here:
> * the issue of communicating a guideline or rule of thumb to all projects
> (ways to have a cross-wiki discussion, about vandalism or checkuser or
> other; which can be discussed on Meta as a starting point), and
> * the issue of having cross-wiki policies (we do have a few, but it's not
> that easy to figure out what they are or to propose new ones)

Some form of WikiCouncil would probably be the way to resolve those
issues. The council could have a committee with the task of acting as
a go-between for projects on issues of cross-wiki vandalism, etc.
Individuals can handle it on their own in most cases (language
barriers may be an issue, but there are already ways of finding
translators), but a committee might be more efficient.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
cary at wikimedia
Aug 11, 2008, 4:43 PM
Post #15 of 26 (15417 views)
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thomas Dalton wrote:
|> Does the user have any other option than editing the smaller wiki and
|> adding the Username Change request, which basically subjects the user to
|> his/her IP information being revealed to additional individuals, not of
|> his/her own wiki?
|
| A trusted user on the smaller project that is also present on enwiki
| could forward the request. I don't really see the problem, though. A
| few checkusers on another project finding out your IP address is
| hardly a serious issue. We can't always cater to people's unreasonable
| paranoia (where possible, sure, but it often isn't). I don't see what
| the foundation has to do with it - they could be the one to forward
| the request, but so could plenty of other people.
|
|> Scenario 2:
|> A user has been banned on enwiki. The user has "outed" psuedonymous
|> individuals via his blog and threads Wikipedia Review by compiling
|> information put together elsewhere on the net. He has taken to another
|> wiki and under the auspices of the local wiki's policy, has put back
|> links to pages which have links to pages (sometimes several pages deep)
|> which "outs" the individuals.
|>
|> Is this a violation of our privacy policy as it exists? If not, how can
|> we best address the needs of the local projects? We have to assume the
|> user is sincere about his project, because AGF is a core principle. If
|> he is sincere, can he not contribute in a fashion that doesn't create so
|> much hardship on other contributors?
|
| Was the banned user a checkuser? If so, then I don't see what the WMF
| privacy policy has to do with it - they only had access to public
| information. If they are a checkuser and have published information
| gained through their checkuser privileges, then it's a pretty cut and
| dry case.
|
| As for the other project - it's common for banned users to be given a
| second chance on another project. The other project can be warned by
| anyone familiar with the case if they deem it necessary, there is no
| need for WMF involvement. Whether or not to take action on that other
| project is, of course, up to that project's community.
|
| I really fail to see why this mailing list is being asked about these
| scenarios, they seem pretty simple to me. Cary, some advice: It seems
| the real issue here is that you see a problem and want to help but
| feel restricted by the foundation's policy of non-interference.
| Remember, you are still a member of the community and can offer advice
| in that capacity. Just make it clear that it's not anything official,
| and there shouldn't be a problem.
|

I do feel the need to clarify, since the user in Scenario 2 called me
out on it. The hypothetical user is presently "indefinitely blocked" on
on enwiki not banned.

- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601
Fax: 415.882.0495

E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkigzqoACgkQyQg4JSymDYn6KwCeLDIdQUngQ6LgMQuJYA08b34m
QsQAoK1ZI7FVsdLcExPDqfd/Df+LD9qz
=OrUd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
birgitte_sb at yahoo
Aug 11, 2008, 5:03 PM
Post #16 of 26 (15413 views)
Permalink
--- On Mon, 8/11/08, Cary Bass <cary@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> From: Cary Bass <cary@wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 2:57 PM
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Scenario 1:
> An active user with an unusual username on the English
> Wikipedia has,
> for whatever reason, never taken advantage of SUL. An
> account opens up
> on a much project which is, given the name, implausibly
> anything other
> than an impostor of the English Wikipedia account. It
> does, however,
> have apparently useful contributions (no difficult matter
> on this wiki
> if one is familiar with it); and the local community, while
> believing
> that the account is an impostor account seems to be
> unwilling to resolve
> the situation without demanding that the user come to the
> smaller
> project and ask for usurpation. Obviously, we
> wouldn't want to force
> the issue with an autonomous project.
>
> How should this be addressed?
>
> Does the user have any other option than editing the
> smaller wiki and
> adding the Username Change request, which basically
> subjects the user to
> his/her IP information being revealed to additional
> individuals, not of
> his/her own wiki?

In doing usurpations on en.WS most people create accounts like User:FrankTemp in order to request a usurp of User:Frank. Very few people actually make a request as an IP, so I don't understand why this is such a dilemma here as most people don't have any trouble to think they can create a quick account to be renamed to the usurp they are requesting.

On the flipside I am a bit surprised that you would bring a non-problem like this here under such a heading. A single user has an issue while every day usurpations are ongoing regularly. It would be quick to simply examine how usurps are being done successfully to answer this query. If there were really a perplexing problem here many others would not have figured out how to get their usurps accomplished long before now!

Birgitte SB




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
birgitte_sb at yahoo
Aug 11, 2008, 5:39 PM
Post #17 of 26 (15390 views)
Permalink
--- On Mon, 8/11/08, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 3:34 PM
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Cary Bass
> <cary@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Scenario 2:
> > A user has been banned on enwiki. The user has
> "outed" psuedonymous
> > individuals via his blog and threads Wikipedia Review
> by compiling
> > information put together elsewhere on the net. He has
> taken to another
> > wiki and under the auspices of the local wiki's
> policy, has put back
> > links to pages which have links to pages (sometimes
> several pages deep)
> > which "outs" the individuals.
> >
>
> Just an additional note to what Cary wrote--this Scenario 2
> in turn then
> spilled over to a separate third project, where users of
> the first project
> arrived in wide numbers to "vote" in an election
> of a Checkuser whose home
> project was the first project mentioned in the scenario.
> En.wiki users
> arrived on the third project after having in many cases
> little to no prior
> involvement in that third project, to actively vote on the
> election of a
> user who was primarily active on the first one and who had
> allegedly taken a
> side in that initial dispute that had nothing at all to do
> with the third
> project. So that scenario #2 actually impacted three
> projects, not just
> two...
>
>


This is a problematic situation, but I don't understand why there is such a breakdown in communication between the project that it would get to this point. I certainly think that it out of line for a non-local community member to run for checkuser without the local communities blessing if that is indeed what has happened here. If there no local community to speak of it should be a steward issue, and no election of checkuser should be necessary. If there is a local community and this report is accurate, I cannot imagine more insurmountable error that could be made in good faith. I cannot even imagine how to overcome the cultural gaffe of trying to get checkuser rights within a local community that is not supportive of the idea. Now it could be the local community is supportive of checkuser and the difficulties in having 22 local voters is leading to crossover support from other wikis which the local communities is accepting of. But if the local
communities did not invite the situation, I think the non-local editors need to back off let some people who are untainted by this gaffe try and salvage the situation and broker some kind of compromise and cooperation. If this is worse case, it is not the sort of situation which will work out on it's own to anyone's satisfaction. But this is all described so vaguely. Please make it clear about how substantial the local community is and if they are truly concerned.

Birgitte SB




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
thomas.dalton at gmail
Aug 11, 2008, 6:47 PM
Post #18 of 26 (15386 views)
Permalink
> I do feel the need to clarify, since the user in Scenario 2 called me
> out on it. The hypothetical user is presently "indefinitely blocked" on
> on enwiki not banned.

The line between "indefinitely blocked" and "community banned" is a
very narrow one. I suspect the person is banned. The only way I can
see an indefinite block not being a ban is if it's just pending
something (the conclusion of a discussion, the person in question
agreeing to certain conditions, or whatever). A community ban is an
indefinite block that no admin is willing to undo - if an admin were
willing to undo this block, they would have done so.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
mike.lifeguard at gmail
Aug 12, 2008, 7:51 AM
Post #19 of 26 (15345 views)
Permalink
Unfortunately, you've misunderstood the situation. Since discussing real
situations is normally preferable, here's a hopefully quick, hopefully
neutral description which names names. For your consideration:

Moulton is indefinitely blocked (or maybe banned?) on enwiki, and has since
moved to Meta, then to Wikiversity, where he is working on
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wi
kipedia - until recently it contained links to his blog, which apparently
outs Wikimedians. SB Johnny is a CheckUser there, and an admin at Commons
(among other stuff) & was recently nominated for CU at Commons
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes
/SB_Johnny_(checkuser) with the aftermath located at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/
SB_Johnny_(checkuser)/Bureaucrats_discussion and the talk pages of both).
Due to his involvement with Moulton and his project, several enwiki users
came to Commons to voice opposition. There are some privacy issues involved,
but that much should clarify what we're talking about.

Commons does indeed have an active community - the issue was what to do
about an influx of new users voting on an RFX. Commons doesn't have a
suffrage policy, so there was a small amount of hand-wringing over that
issue, and much drama surrounding the whole affair.

So the situation is not that some outsider had requested CU, and the folks
from elsewhere were largely opposing the nomination. And Johnny is not
banned elsewhere - he is not the problem user.

However, I think your prescription stands. It was appropriate to give light
weight to new users' votes (actually, they were disregarded entirely;
CheckUser uses a straight-up vote :\ ) and with the situation at
Wikiversity, it is up to that community to reign in problem users or not as
they see fit. Certainly past experience of other projects should guide &
inform them though.

Further discussion should not flog the horse described above, but should
please look at the general issues raised.

Thanks, Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Birgitte SB [mailto:birgitte_sb@yahoo.com]
Sent: August 11, 2008 9:39 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects

This is a problematic situation, but I don't understand why there is such a
breakdown in communication between the project that it would get to this
point. I certainly think that it out of line for a non-local community
member to run for checkuser without the local communities blessing if that
is indeed what has happened here. If there no local community to speak of
it should be a steward issue, and no election of checkuser should be
necessary. If there is a local community and this report is accurate, I
cannot imagine more insurmountable error that could be made in good faith.
I cannot even imagine how to overcome the cultural gaffe of trying to get
checkuser rights within a local community that is not supportive of the
idea. Now it could be the local community is supportive of checkuser and
the difficulties in having 22 local voters is leading to crossover support
from other wikis which the local communities is accepting of. But if the
local
communities did not invite the situation, I think the non-local editors
need to back off let some people who are untainted by this gaffe try and
salvage the situation and broker some kind of compromise and cooperation.
If this is worse case, it is not the sort of situation which will work out
on it's own to anyone's satisfaction. But this is all described so vaguely.
Please make it clear about how substantial the local community is and if
they are truly concerned.

Birgitte SB







_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
birgitte_sb at yahoo
Aug 12, 2008, 10:42 AM
Post #20 of 26 (15418 views)
Permalink
Thanks for clarifying. I definitely agree that b'crat using their discretion to weight the votes of community members vs others is the right way to go here. This is the procedure followed at en.WS as well. I think a lot of the larger issue is due to the fact that some wikis take much longer to discuss things and think about them before taking action than I find to be common at en.WP. While en.WP is usually quick to take some action then discuss it and possibly reverse or modify the original action. en.WS tends to discuss and if there is no consensus they will "wait and see" for quite some time, but once they take an action no one is interested in discussing it further for a good while. I think the problems may often be simply a clashes between two different styles in handling problems without much real disagreement on substance. That said I would implore anyone to learn and use the local style to accomplish anything in that local wiki. It may seem
irrational, but I can guarantee that the intial misuderstandings started by stylistic differences will be very difficult to overcome.

Birgitte SB

--- On Tue, 8/12/08, mike.lifeguard <mike.lifeguard@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: mike.lifeguard <mike.lifeguard@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects
> To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 9:51 AM
> Unfortunately, you've misunderstood the situation. Since
> discussing real
> situations is normally preferable, here's a hopefully
> quick, hopefully
> neutral description which names names. For your
> consideration:
>
> Moulton is indefinitely blocked (or maybe banned?) on
> enwiki, and has since
> moved to Meta, then to Wikiversity, where he is working on
> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wi
> kipedia - until recently it contained links to his blog,
> which apparently
> outs Wikimedians. SB Johnny is a CheckUser there, and an
> admin at Commons
> (among other stuff) & was recently nominated for CU at
> Commons
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes
> /SB_Johnny_(checkuser) with the aftermath located at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/
> SB_Johnny_(checkuser)/Bureaucrats_discussion and the talk
> pages of both).
> Due to his involvement with Moulton and his project,
> several enwiki users
> came to Commons to voice opposition. There are some privacy
> issues involved,
> but that much should clarify what we're talking about.
>
> Commons does indeed have an active community - the issue
> was what to do
> about an influx of new users voting on an RFX. Commons
> doesn't have a
> suffrage policy, so there was a small amount of
> hand-wringing over that
> issue, and much drama surrounding the whole affair.
>
> So the situation is not that some outsider had requested
> CU, and the folks
> from elsewhere were largely opposing the nomination. And
> Johnny is not
> banned elsewhere - he is not the problem user.
>
> However, I think your prescription stands. It was
> appropriate to give light
> weight to new users' votes (actually, they were
> disregarded entirely;
> CheckUser uses a straight-up vote :\ ) and with the
> situation at
> Wikiversity, it is up to that community to reign in problem
> users or not as
> they see fit. Certainly past experience of other projects
> should guide &
> inform them though.
>
> Further discussion should not flog the horse described
> above, but should
> please look at the general issues raised.
>
> Thanks, Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birgitte SB [mailto:birgitte_sb@yahoo.com]
> Sent: August 11, 2008 9:39 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] "Wikidrama" and
> autonomy of Wikimedia projects
>
> This is a problematic situation, but I don't understand
> why there is such a
> breakdown in communication between the project that it
> would get to this
> point. I certainly think that it out of line for a
> non-local community
> member to run for checkuser without the local communities
> blessing if that
> is indeed what has happened here. If there no local
> community to speak of
> it should be a steward issue, and no election of checkuser
> should be
> necessary. If there is a local community and this report
> is accurate, I
> cannot imagine more insurmountable error that could be made
> in good faith.
> I cannot even imagine how to overcome the cultural gaffe of
> trying to get
> checkuser rights within a local community that is not
> supportive of the
> idea. Now it could be the local community is supportive of
> checkuser and
> the difficulties in having 22 local voters is leading to
> crossover support
> from other wikis which the local communities is accepting
> of. But if the
> local
> communities did not invite the situation, I think the
> non-local editors
> need to back off let some people who are untainted by this
> gaffe try and
> salvage the situation and broker some kind of compromise
> and cooperation.
> If this is worse case, it is not the sort of situation
> which will work out
> on it's own to anyone's satisfaction. But this is
> all described so vaguely.
> Please make it clear about how substantial the local
> community is and if
> they are truly concerned.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
majorly.wiki at googlemail
Aug 12, 2008, 3:44 PM
Post #21 of 26 (15346 views)
Permalink
2008/8/11 mike.lifeguard <mike.lifeguard@gmail.com>

> >The outcome of the discussion on
> >en.wp
> >was clear - usurping en.wp contributors required the assent of an en.wp
> >bureaucrat,
> >who must abide by en.wp rules.
> Luckily, there are many projects which do not have such a policy.
>
> >so its up to the local community to proscribe and police that sort
> >of
> >undesirable activity.
> Luckily, the wiki in question, and indeed most wikis, do not have a rule or
> guideline on this issue (though I believe it is fairly straightforward).
>
> >A bunch of en.wp users showing up to vote in a
> >checkuser
> >election on another project seems strange and wrong, but again its down to
> >the suffrage policy of that project to control such events.
> Luckily, the wiki in question doesn't have a suffrage policy.
>
> Whether this lack of policy/rule/guideline/whatever is a problem is
> debatable. For example, English Wikibooks has not suffered for lack of a
> renaming policy (or blocking policy for that matter!).
>
> In other cases, a user may feel their hands are tied because there is no
> policy which says "This is the right thing to do." In cases where policy is
> lacking, good judgment must be used.
>
> When good judgment does not prevail, there is a problem. Those who whine
> about wikis not having a certain policy should realize that that situation
> is not in and of itself a problem. This applies as much on a single project
> as on multiple projects. We simply do not need a global policy for
> everything - efforts to do so will largely fail.
>
> That said, the issues raised by Cary are real, and we need to discuss how
> best to deal with them. My point here is to warn that writing a global
> policy for every niche where no policy lives may not be the best way
> forward.
>
> Mike
>

English Wikibooks, Commons, Wikiquote etc are pretty small compared to
English Wikipedia. The sheer size requires some sort of order. On smaller
wikis such as Meta and Simple English Wikipedia, we more rely on "good
judgement" than strictly following policies. I don't think a global policy
is needed. Local projects should make their own decisions, for the best
interests of what we're all here for: the content, not ourselves. If the
user in question ever wanted to edit Wikiquote, he or she can create another
username and contribute in that way. All this "me me me" attitude is bad -
it's the content that's our number one priority.

--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
slimvirgin at gmail
Aug 12, 2008, 4:14 PM
Post #22 of 26 (15339 views)
Permalink
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Al Tally <majorly.wiki@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On smaller
> wikis such as Meta and Simple English Wikipedia, we more rely on "good
> judgement" than strictly following policies. I don't think a global policy
> is needed. Local projects should make their own decisions, for the best
> interests of what we're all here for: the content, not ourselves. If the
> user in question ever wanted to edit Wikiquote, he or she can create another
> username and contribute in that way. All this "me me me" attitude is bad -
> it's the content that's our number one priority.

Alex, I agree that a "me me me" attitude is bad. But in one of the
cases Cary talked about, all that happened was that someone had
created an account on Wikiquote in the name of an admin on the English
Wikipedia, one with an unusual name. The new user had 47 edits on
Wikiquote (all or most minor); the admin had around 12,000 on the
English Wikipedia, most of them substantial content contributions,
going back to May 2006.

Common sense and courtesy would have told the folks at Wikiquote to
impose a name change on the new guy, because he was probably trolling.
Instead, there was a big kerfuffle (including from the bureaucrats
there) about how dare people on the English WP turn up to dictate, and
maybe the identical names were a cooincidence, and all that really
mattered was the new guy's 47 outstanding minor edits. So the admin
who's had the name for over two years is expected to jump through
various hoops now, including creating a temp account there to request
his name back, even though he doesn't want to post there and give away
his IP address -- the reason is that at least one of the bureaucrats
is an administrator with Wikipedia Review, and has been actively
involved in outing people.

With autonomy comes the need for some common sense. I've had people
impersonate me on other projects, and it has always been sorted out
quickly by the bureaucrats; indeed, it's usually sorted out before I
even notice it. But things seem to work very differently on Wikiquote.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
nawrich at gmail
Aug 12, 2008, 4:35 PM
Post #23 of 26 (15380 views)
Permalink
A Wikiquote bureaucrat has been actively involved in outing people on
Wikipedia Review? Really?

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
meta.sj at gmail
Aug 12, 2008, 5:35 PM
Post #24 of 26 (15360 views)
Permalink
That would be odd. And how does creating a temp account give away one's IP
to a local bureaucrat? If there are checkusers on any project that are
sharing private data, that's another matter.

SJ

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

> A Wikiquote bureaucrat has been actively involved in outing people on
> Wikipedia Review? Really?
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects [ In reply to ]
wknight8111 at gmail
Aug 12, 2008, 5:43 PM
Post #25 of 26 (15341 views)
Permalink
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
> That would be odd. And how does creating a temp account give away one's IP
> to a local bureaucrat? If there are checkusers on any project that are
> sharing private data, that's another matter.

When I was going through all the SUL unification nonsense, I found it
particularly valuable to have a second global account with an obscure
and unique name, precisely for this reason. I had the second account
precisely because of a naming conflict I had on a few projects, but I
also used it as a bot account and for tests. There are plenty of
benefits to keeping a secondary account around.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1 2  View All

©2024 GT.net. A Gossamer Threads company.
5th Floor, 455 Granville St., Vancouver, BC V6C 1T1, Canada | Legal