Mailing List Archive

It means global to the English Wikipedia, someone should probably change
that. Different languages and projects are largely independent of each
other, and can have their own policies. The only requirement is that they
follow the founding principles (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles) and any other decisions
of the Wikimedia Foundation, though in practice projects tend to develop
along broadly similar lines anyway. Trying to press a en.wp policy
(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is
foolish and likely to be resisted.

Pete / the wub


2009/8/6 wp99 ----- <wp99system@gmail.com>

> Hi, currently, I participate a process to translate Wikipedia:What
> Wikipedia is not and import that to JaWp. Since WP:NOT is a Global
> Principle according to the right box of the page, I naturally insist
> to import this document as it is without modifications, at least
> without major modifications for basic key concepts such as
> Wikipedia:Consensus.
>
> In a final phase to fix the final translated version, a user appeared
> and claimed that he cannot agree to apply WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and
> WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY to JaWp, since it's not properly to reflect the
> current JaWp manner, etc.(dunno what exactly he intends to mean, but
> the bottom line is he doesn't agree to import these 2 sections of
> WP:NOT).
>
> Obviously, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY includes a
> significant Wp Global Principe - Wikipedia:Consensus, so I explained
> him that WP:NOT is not a mere policies but a Global Princile including
> singificant Wp concpet. Basically, he won't listen claiming JaWp is
> somewhat independent of EnWp, and this discussion is still open in
> JaWp.
>
> Another user suggested me to ask an official statement from Wikimedia
> Foundation, and I also think it would be better to clear how
> internlingual cordination of Wikipedia Policy works.
>
> So, is there anyone here who knows well about this topic, and could
> you advise where to start to make this clear. Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

>Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted.

Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project
try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and
WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items
define well the basic behavior of community decision making and
treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it
foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already
notice the importance.

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

Hoi,
The policies of the English language Wikipedia have evolved over many years
and they suit a large world wide audience who is largely part of the Anglo
American world. Many other Wikipedias reflect a culture which is distinctly
different. with different value systems. These projects slowly but surely
grow and evolve. They will look at the example that is given by the English
language Wikipedia and they deserve the right to make the policies their
own.

We do not have a "council" or another body that helps with the assimilation
of these concepts. Other concepts that are imho as important like the need
for citations are not part yet of many projects because these projects do
not have the maturity for this. This will also be a problem in the BLP
project Cary wants to set up. Many projects just do not have the ability to
adopt the overhead for what are essential policies in our more mature
projects even arguably essential in all projects.

The only real solution is for our projects is to mature and challenge
existing dogmas. We will mature as an organisation as a consequence.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/8/6 Jade Harold <jadeharold@gmail.com>

> >Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial
> as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted.
>
> Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project
> try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and
> WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items
> define well the basic behavior of community decision making and
> treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it
> foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already
> notice the importance.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

2009/8/6 Jade Harold <jadeharold@gmail.com>

> >Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial
> as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted.
>
> Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project
> try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and
> WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items
> define well the basic behavior of community decision making and
> treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it
> foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already
> notice the importance.
>
>
Yes, there's nothing wrong with saying "This policy from en.wp seems
sensible, maybe we should have something similar?" This is different from
slavish imitation.

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

Hello, Jade.

Wp99 is blocked as a sock puppet of very long term abuse user suspected
using enormous sock puppets in jawp.
I know my following request is rude, but I can't find your activity.

Jade, please give me your edit history in any project.

Jade Harold wrote:
>> Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted.
>
> Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project
> try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and
> WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items
> define well the basic behavior of community decision making and
> treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it
> foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already
> notice the importance.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

----
[[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]]

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

Hey,

Who are you? and Why you asking me such a thing??
Honestly, I don't care who is blocked in a local project, and it's beyond of
my concern.
Plus, truly puzzling, your interest of my activity. Purpose? Explain.

2009/8/6 mizusumashi <mizusumashi@coda.ocn.ne.jp>

> Hello, Jade.
>
> Wp99 is blocked as a sock puppet of very long term abuse user suspected
> using enormous sock puppets in jawp.
> I know my following request is rude, but I can't find your activity.
>
> Jade, please give me your edit history in any project.
>
> Jade Harold wrote:
> >> Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial
> as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted.
> >
> > Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project
> > try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and
> > WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items
> > define well the basic behavior of community decision making and
> > treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it
> > foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already
> > notice the importance.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
>
> ----
> [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Hello, Jade.

Jade Harold wrote:
> Who are you? and Why you asking me such a thing??

I'm mizusumashi, a Japanese Wikipedia sysop.
See:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85:Mizusumashi?uselang=en
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5:%E6%8A%95%E7%A8%BF%E8%A8%98%E9%8C%B2/Mizusumashi?uselang=en
http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5:%E7%99%BB%E9%8C%B2%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85%E3%81%AE%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7&limit=1&username=Mizusumashi&uselang=en


> Plus, truly puzzling, your interest of my activity. Purpose? Explain.

I know my request is rude. I requested to declare your edit history in
any project, because I hope to clear up a doubt that you are
a sock puppet of Wp99.

Sorry for my poor English. Thank you.

----
[[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]]

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

Hello,

Could you discuss this outside the list? I don't see why it would be
important for this list.

Best regards,
Huib
--

Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor



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

Hello, Huib.

O.K. I promise to stop this if Jade would declare her/his edit history
or other activity - I think it's very very easy -.

Huib! wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Could you discuss this outside the list? I don't see why it would be
> important for this list.
>
> Best regards,
> Huib

----
[[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]]

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

Then ask him/her about it off list. This has nothing to do with foundation-l.

-Chad

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, mizusumashi<mizusumashi@coda.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> Hello, Huib.
>
> O.K.  I promise to stop this if Jade would declare her/his edit history
> or other activity - I think it's very very easy -.
>
> Huib! wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Could you discuss this outside the list? I don't see why it would be
>> important for this list.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Huib
>
> ----
>   [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Aug 6, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Chad wrote:

> Then ask him/her about it off list. This has nothing to do with
> foundation-l.
>
> -Chad
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM,
> mizusumashi<mizusumashi@coda.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
>> Hello, Huib.
>>
>> O.K. I promise to stop this if Jade would declare her/his edit
>> history
>> or other activity - I think it's very very easy -.
>>
>> Huib! wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Could you discuss this outside the list? I don't see why it would be
>>> important for this list.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Huib
>>
>> ----
>> [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


This particular fight doesn't, no. But it does tangentially touch on
the broader issue of cross-wiki policies, and instances where certain
wikis "go rogue" (for instance, those that have instituted privacy
policy violating user tracking systems, or where only one or two
sysops exist and exercise de facto control over the entire list).

I have to say, this is far from the first time I've heard stories of
ja.wp administrators taking their private grievances out on
contributors. Now we have them demanding that mailing users "declare
their edit history or other activity?" What's next? "Let me see your
identification papers?" The broader issue of "what standards should
apply cross-project and cross-community" and "who should be
responsible for ensuring/enforcing that certain projects do not adopt
policies that violate the Foundation's mission or standards" is worthy
of question on this list. I would assume that the answer to the latter
question is "the stewards", but the latter question can't be solved
until the former question of cross-project standards is resolved; and
I don't think that it has been.

If I'm wrong of course, and we've had this discussion before, I would
love to be pointed to it.

-Dan

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

On 2009-08-06 12:01, Jade Harold wrote:
>> Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted.
>
> Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project
> try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and
> WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items
> define well the basic behavior of community decision making and
> treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it
> foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already
> notice the importance.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Let's get down to basics:
1. What's the purpose of Wiki[p|m]edia? Roughly, to distribute "all
knowledge". That's the mission.
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement)

2. How do we do that? *What* knowledge? *Whose* knowledge? What is it,
in short, that separates Wikimedia's projects from other things out
there? Well, that'd be the [[m:Founding_principles]]. NPOV, freedom to
contribute, wiki process, free license. (and existence of a dispute
resolution, if needed). A few further policies, like [[WP:NOTLAW]], are
of course necessary to cover our backsides...

3. How do we get around doing this in practice? How do we make the daily
work as efficient as possible? In terms of what's in, what's out,
exactly how should decisions be made, etc, etc. That is - to me - the
point of policies such as WP:NOT#Community and a few other points in WP:NOT.



For me, the first two points determine very much what will be the result
of our work. The philosophy and the ideas behind the project. The third
point is technicalities which governs how we'll get there. Sure, some
paths will be easier, some will be harder; some paths will match better
with certain cultures or mindsets, other paths will match other
mindsets. But! This is all about the path to the goal, not the goal in
itself. *If two paths arrive at equivalent encyclopedias, I see no
reason why the foundation or anyone else outside the community should
care: it's the community's choice.*

So, my two cents would be: Don't confuse the process, the encyclopedia
writing, with the goal, the encyclopedia. The *writing* is not - should
not be - the goal. Right?

\Mike



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

This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will
over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many
cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or
strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are
often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people
because it's a "local" matter.

Mark

skype: node.ue



On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Dan Rosenthal<swatjester@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Chad wrote:
>
>> Then ask him/her about it off list. This has nothing to do with
>> foundation-l.
>>
>> -Chad
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM,
>> mizusumashi<mizusumashi@coda.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
>>> Hello, Huib.
>>>
>>> O.K.  I promise to stop this if Jade would declare her/his edit
>>> history
>>> or other activity - I think it's very very easy -.
>>>
>>> Huib! wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Could you discuss this outside the list? I don't see why it would be
>>>> important for this list.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Huib
>>>
>>> ----
>>>   [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]]
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> This particular fight doesn't, no. But it does tangentially touch on
> the broader issue of cross-wiki policies, and instances where certain
> wikis "go rogue" (for instance, those that have instituted privacy
> policy violating user tracking systems, or where only one or two
> sysops exist and exercise de facto control over the entire list).
>
> I have to say, this is far from the first time I've heard stories of
> ja.wp administrators taking their private grievances out on
> contributors.  Now we have them demanding that mailing users "declare
> their edit history or other activity?" What's next? "Let me see your
> identification papers?" The broader issue of "what standards should
> apply cross-project and cross-community" and "who should be
> responsible for ensuring/enforcing that certain projects do not adopt
> policies that violate the Foundation's mission or standards" is worthy
> of question on this list. I would assume that the answer to the latter
> question is "the stewards", but the latter question can't be solved
> until the former question of cross-project standards is resolved; and
> I don't think that it has been.
>
> If I'm wrong of course, and we've had this discussion before, I would
> love to be pointed to it.
>
> -Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM
> This problem of one or two
> strong-willed admins enforcing their will
> over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In
> many
> cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard
> dialects, or
> strange editing rules have been enforced; people who
> complain are
> often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation
> people
> because it's a "local" matter.
>

The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it.

Birgitte SB






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

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Peter Coombe <thewub.wiki@googlemail.com>wrote:

> Yes, there's nothing wrong with saying "This policy from en.wp seems
> sensible, maybe we should have something similar?" This is different from
> slavish imitation.


Indeed -- I think Gerard expressed a similar idea. All wikis can and should
keep an eye out for good ideas and practices on other wikis, even outside of
the Wikimedia sphere, but in most cases there's nothing saying they *need*
to adopt policy from elsewhere.

A good idea is a good idea, but every wiki is different. The best people to
make that decision are the people working on that wiki.

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

Alright, but what about the case of a Wiki where there are perhaps 3
active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? It is the
Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first place. I do
believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to get involved
in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some that should
be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a megalomaniac run a
Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems unacceptable to
me.

Mark

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SB<birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM
>> This problem of one or two
>> strong-willed admins enforcing their will
>> over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In
>> many
>> cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard
>> dialects, or
>> strange editing rules have been enforced; people who
>> complain are
>> often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation
>> people
>> because it's a "local" matter.
>>
>
> The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki.  When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing.  Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it.
>
> 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

Hi, the replies and discussion have been extremely informative and
useful to me. Thank you all.

I will carefully read your opinions again, and notify JaWp MailingList
of these ideas.

Thanks again,
Best Regarads

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

There are always extreme situations that merit exceptional treatment. ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active users.

Birgitte SB

--- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM
> Alright, but what about the case of a
> Wiki where there are perhaps 3
> active users, and the administrator is imposing their will?
> It is the
> Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first
> place. I do
> believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to
> get involved
> in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some
> that should
> be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a
> megalomaniac run a
> Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems
> unacceptable to
> me.
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SB<birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy
> Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
> >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM
> >> This problem of one or two
> >> strong-willed admins enforcing their will
> >> over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller
> Wikis. In
> >> many
> >> cases, uncommon or strange orthographies,
> nonstandard
> >> dialects, or
> >> strange editing rules have been enforced; people
> who
> >> complain are
> >> often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by
> foundation
> >> people
> >> because it's a "local" matter.
> >>
> >
> > The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of
> local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki.  When
> people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation
> issues complain here they are often properly informed that
> it is a local matter and that the each wiki is
> self-governing.  Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is
> hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of
> it.
> >
> > 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
>




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

I'm talking about more general policy, not ja.wp in particular.

On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are always extreme situations that merit exceptional treatment.
> ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active users.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn -
>> WP:NOT
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM
>> Alright, but what about the case of a
>> Wiki where there are perhaps 3
>> active users, and the administrator is imposing their will?
>> It is the
>> Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first
>> place. I do
>> believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to
>> get involved
>> in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some
>> that should
>> be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a
>> megalomaniac run a
>> Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems
>> unacceptable to
>> me.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SB<birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy
>> Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
>> >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>> >> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> >> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM
>> >> This problem of one or two
>> >> strong-willed admins enforcing their will
>> >> over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller
>> Wikis. In
>> >> many
>> >> cases, uncommon or strange orthographies,
>> nonstandard
>> >> dialects, or
>> >> strange editing rules have been enforced; people
>> who
>> >> complain are
>> >> often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by
>> foundation
>> >> people
>> >> because it's a "local" matter.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of
>> local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki.  When
>> people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation
>> issues complain here they are often properly informed that
>> it is a local matter and that the each wiki is
>> self-governing.  Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is
>> hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of
>> it.
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
skype: node.ue

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

I don't know that it is useful to make a general policy for exceptions. I think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct attention to them when they are noticed.

I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest, rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are in danger of developing such situations. Not that I would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task on. It is just that it is very tricky. It probably would be more effective to wait till the locals complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the wiki, of mismanagement. Oftentimes locals that even have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the devil you know, etc. It is very touchy situation that leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks the same language.

Birgitte SB

--- On Fri, 8/7/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 3:41 PM
> I'm talking about more general
> policy, not ja.wp in particular.
>
> On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > There are always extreme situations that merit
> exceptional treatment.
> > ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active
> users.
> >
> > Birgitte SB
> >
> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy
> Interlingual Coordinationn -
> >> WP:NOT
> >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM
> >> Alright, but what about the case of a
> >> Wiki where there are perhaps 3
> >> active users, and the administrator is imposing
> their will?
> >> It is the
> >> Foundation that gave the admins the power in the
> first
> >> place. I do
> >> believe that _most_ issues people want the
> Foundation to
> >> get involved
> >> in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there
> are some
> >> that should
> >> be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a
> >> megalomaniac run a
> >> Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom
> seems
> >> unacceptable to
> >> me.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SB<birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> >> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia
> Policy
> >> Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
> >> >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> >> >> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> >> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM
> >> >> This problem of one or two
> >> >> strong-willed admins enforcing their
> will
> >> >> over others is not an uncommon problem at
> smaller
> >> Wikis. In
> >> >> many
> >> >> cases, uncommon or strange
> orthographies,
> >> nonstandard
> >> >> dialects, or
> >> >> strange editing rules have been enforced;
> people
> >> who
> >> >> complain are
> >> >> often ignored and referred back to the
> Wiki by
> >> foundation
> >> >> people
> >> >> because it's a "local" matter.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The problem of a user dissatisfied with the
> actions of
> >> local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki.
>  When
> >> people dissatisfied with local enforcement of
> non-foundation
> >> issues complain here they are often properly
> informed that
> >> it is a local matter and that the each wiki is
> >> self-governing.  Frankly the autonomy of the
> wikis is
> >> hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the
> logistics of
> >> it.
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> skype: node.ue
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

My point is that this situation has arisen many times in the past and
the response is very frequently a simple "We can't help you, it's a
local issue". Of course it should be dealt with at a local level but I
think that the foundation should be a little less hands-off than it
has often been when it comes to smaller communities where people have
been allowed to wield tremendous influence just because they got to a
wiki first.

Mark

On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't know that it is useful to make a general policy for exceptions. I
> think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to
> direct attention to them when they are noticed.
>
> I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait and react to the sorts
> of extreme situation you suggest, rather than to seek to proactively verify
> that no wikis are in danger of developing such situations. Not that I would
> stop anyone form volunteering to take such task on. It is just that it is
> very tricky. It probably would be more effective to wait till the locals
> complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse admins, who
> likely have put the most time and edits into the wiki, of mismanagement.
> Oftentimes locals that even have disagreements with the admins will be
> inclined to oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the
> devil you know, etc. It is very touchy situation that leans towards
> misunderstandings even when everyone speaks the same language.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
> --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn -
>> WP:NOT
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 3:41 PM
>> I'm talking about more general
>> policy, not ja.wp in particular.
>>
>> On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > There are always extreme situations that merit
>> exceptional treatment.
>> > ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active
>> users.
>> >
>> > Birgitte SB
>> >
>> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy
>> Interlingual Coordinationn -
>> >> WP:NOT
>> >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>> >> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> >> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM
>> >> Alright, but what about the case of a
>> >> Wiki where there are perhaps 3
>> >> active users, and the administrator is imposing
>> their will?
>> >> It is the
>> >> Foundation that gave the admins the power in the
>> first
>> >> place. I do
>> >> believe that _most_ issues people want the
>> Foundation to
>> >> get involved
>> >> in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there
>> are some
>> >> that should
>> >> be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a
>> >> megalomaniac run a
>> >> Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom
>> seems
>> >> unacceptable to
>> >> me.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SB<birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> From: Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia
>> Policy
>> >> Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
>> >> >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>> >> >> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> >> >> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM
>> >> >> This problem of one or two
>> >> >> strong-willed admins enforcing their
>> will
>> >> >> over others is not an uncommon problem at
>> smaller
>> >> Wikis. In
>> >> >> many
>> >> >> cases, uncommon or strange
>> orthographies,
>> >> nonstandard
>> >> >> dialects, or
>> >> >> strange editing rules have been enforced;
>> people
>> >> who
>> >> >> complain are
>> >> >> often ignored and referred back to the
>> Wiki by
>> >> foundation
>> >> >> people
>> >> >> because it's a "local" matter.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem of a user dissatisfied with the
>> actions of
>> >> local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki.
>>  When
>> >> people dissatisfied with local enforcement of
>> non-foundation
>> >> issues complain here they are often properly
>> informed that
>> >> it is a local matter and that the each wiki is
>> >> self-governing.  Frankly the autonomy of the
>> wikis is
>> >> hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the
>> logistics of
>> >> it.
>> >> >
>> >> > 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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> skype: node.ue
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


--
skype: node.ue

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

Birgitte SB wrote:
> I don't know that it is useful to make a general policy for exceptions. I think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct attention to them when they are noticed.
>
> I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest, rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are in danger of developing such situations. Not that I would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task on. It is just that it is very tricky. It probably would be more effective to wait till the locals complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the wiki, of mismanagement. Oftentimes locals that even have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the devil you know, etc. It is very touchy situation that leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks the same language.
>
>
As much as I have always supported project autonomy, I know from
experience on Wikisource that certain malevolent individuals like
Pathoschild will leave no facts undistorted to achieve their ends. I
found what happened there deeply offensive.

I did ask for help here. You asked then that I move the discussion back
to the project, and out of respect for you I did. That accomplished
nothing. I suggested mediation, and you effectively refused.
Bureaucrats should have enough experience, stature and impartiality to
be able to step into these situations and bring people to a common
understanding instead of burying their heads in the sand and pretending
that there is no problem. A community like the one at Wikisource is
obviously too small to have a formal arbitration process, so we should
be able to expect better leadership from the bureaucrats. So perhaps it
is time for some kind of system outside the project that can look at
these personality problems more objectively.

Ec

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

Mark Williamson wrote:
> My point is that this situation has arisen many times in the past and
> the response is very frequently a simple "We can't help you, it's a
> local issue". Of course it should be dealt with at a local level but I
> think that the foundation should be a little less hands-off than it
> has often been when it comes to smaller communities where people have
> been allowed to wield tremendous influence just because they got to a
> wiki first.
It doesn't even need to be the Foundation. Any group of people with
objectivity and people skills would suffice. Of course, where another
language is at the heart of the controversy there are special
difficulties in getting outsiders to understand the particular problem.

Ec

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

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:

> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:31 AM
> Birgitte SB wrote:
> > I don't know that it is useful to make a general
> policy for exceptions.  I think it is better just to
> watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct
> attention to them when they are noticed. 
> >
> > I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait
> and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest,
> rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are
> in danger of developing such situations.  Not that I
> would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task
> on.  It is just that it is very tricky.  It
> probably would be more effective to wait till the locals
> complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse
> admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the
> wiki, of mismanagement.  Oftentimes locals that even
> have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to
> oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the
> devil you know, etc.  It is very touchy situation that
> leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks
> the same language.
> >
> >   
> As much as I have always supported project autonomy, I know
> from
> experience on Wikisource that certain malevolent
> individuals like
> Pathoschild will leave no facts undistorted to achieve
> their ends.  I
> found what happened there deeply offensive.
>
> I did ask for help here. You asked then that I move the
> discussion back
> to the project, and out of respect for you I did. 
> That accomplished
> nothing. I suggested mediation, and you effectively
> refused. 
> Bureaucrats should have enough experience, stature and
> impartiality to
> be able to step into these situations and bring people to a
> common
> understanding instead of burying their heads in the sand
> and pretending
> that there is no problem.  A community like the one at
> Wikisource is
> obviously too small to have a formal arbitration process,
> so we should
> be able to expect better leadership from the
> bureaucrats.  So perhaps it
> is time for some kind of system outside the project that
> can look at
> these personality problems more objectively.
>
> Ec
>

I have been offline since Friday and just read this message. I am too angry at your mis-characterization of me to trust myself to respond in any depth. But I cannot allow anyone, including you, to mistake my silence is any sort of agreement. I failed to resolve things to your satisfaction, but I approached you in good faith. When I was not able to help you; you could have approached others or returned the issue to the list then. Instead you wait months to spin things in a false light and label people "malevolent". You have lost touch with the fact that we are all acting in good faith towards what we each believe the best path for the projects. When we find ourselves at odds it is not because one side is evil and the other good; but because we rank different values as more important than others. Leave my name out of your future emails.

Birgitte SB





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