Gebruiker:Elian/Information gathering

This is an informal page to gather information about the situation in the dutch wikipedia and the opinions of the users here. Please don't mistake it for a poll or something of this sort. I would be happy if you take the time to answer my questions. To not start any fights just give your opinion, don't comment any statements of others here (you can use the discussion page if you feel you have to). I will remove any such comments from this page. Please try to restrict your answers to a maximum of four lines on this page her (you can send me longer comments per mail).

If you don't like to state your opinion publicly, you can send it to me by mail (elian@djini.de) - everything I receive by mail will be kept confidentially and added as anonymous opinions here.

Background information: Since quite some time I hear on IRC about the problems in the dutch wikipedia, that is "another moderator resigned...the fights started again...". This left us (the international crowd) in sorrow for the dutch wikipedia and with a lot of questions what could be done to help. This questionnaire is part of our try to help.

Just a short update: Thanks all people who gave their opinions so far :-) I need some time to think this through and sort it out. A long answer will follow at the end of this week. greetings, and my best wishes to the dutch wikipedia, --Elian 3 nov 2004 02:00 (CET)

Summary

Who left wikipedia?

The Real Wikipedian^TM does not leave permanently even if he/she says to leave. ;-) Anyone who said he/she would leave: Please return soon! Listing people here might make it more difficult to return soon, IMHO. Flyingbird 30 okt 2004 08:03 (CEST)

1. Elly (Said goodbye on her user page on october 27 but is still contributing) [1]
2. Snoop (Said goodbye on october 28)
3. Martijn (quit on october 29 see Wikipedia:De_kroeg#Muijz.27_commentaar)
4. Bart van der Pligt 11 nov 2004 23:34 (CET) (Quit after Jimbo's tactics to 'restore harmony' proved to be nothing more than 'ban Muijz')

Who resigned as moderator?

1. Andre Engels
2. Elly
3. Waerth
   1. Apparently Waerth is moderator again (after an absence of 2 or 3 days). Fruggo 30 okt 2004 14:13 (CEST)
4. Ch®is made clear he temporarily would not do moderation tasks.
   1. i think Ch®is (thank god) is back, see here oscar 3 nov 2004 17:42 (CET)

List of the conflicts

(Please just link to the relevant page + one-line summary by someone not involved ;-)

january 24, 2004 - Muijz resigns due to discussions on the "News" pages

february 27, 2004 - Muijz returns

august 2004 - A discussion between Muijz and Wvr a lot of people on the role of Queen Wilhelmina before and during WWII. It starts with Wvr stating that the article is bullshit, Oscar reacts to that, after which react (in the following sequence): Muijz, Jcwf, Fruggo, Bemoeial, Elly and Waerth. Muijz says to Wvr: 87% of the dutch population has an orange colored shield before their eyes. You (Wvr) are one of the examples. See Overleg:Collaboratie (Strike out and italic added later by me; Fruggo 8 nov 2004 21:06 (CET))

(What do the above three items have to do with the current turmoil (except for the obvious fact that Muijz is involved)? Resignation and return is something that has happened to (rough estimate) 30% of the Wikipedians. I wasn't aware of the last point, but after a quick look at the page mentioned, I see nothing but a civilised discussion without escalation. I consider the above points irrelevant and would argue that the real conflict history starts below. — Sander Spek. 5 nov 2004 09:18 (CET))

Please see my comment on the discussion page. Fruggo 5 nov 2004 22:27 (CET)

september 7 - Muijz objects to Elly using part of her wikipedia-user-pages for a personal project of herself and several non-wikipedians. Muijz marks the page for imideate deletion several times. Elly protects the page. Several people get involved, telling Muijz to back off. Nonetheless Muijz keeps marking the page for deletion. In the end most people agree with Muijz but his behaviour is criticized. The actual pages where this discussion occured have since been deleted following the normal deletion procedure.

october 7 - CE blocks Muijz after he repeatedly removed several links to wiktionary articles and did wave requests to sleep a night about it. It is part of an ongoing conflict between Muiz and GerardM. Elly supports CE's action, referring to the september 7 incident. More people get involved. Some users stated that "the moderators" are abusing their "powers". Some moderators feel they're unjustly criticized and go 'on strike'. A 'peace treaty' is signed between Muijz, Elly, CE and GerardM. (Wikipedia:Achterkamertje/archief 1)

october 12 - Elly sends an e-mail to her 'moderator colleagues'. She feels 'seriously damaged', she urges her 'colleagues' to take action against Muijz ("Who dares??"); she wants several pages to be 'permanently deleted' and expects totel support from other moderators. Lennart Bolks reacts: he doesn't agree and finds Elly's request "peculiar to say the least", especially since Elly signed the 'peace treaty'. [2]

october 14 - Because both Elly and Lennart inadvertedly sent their mails to the nl.wikipedia-mailinglist, anyone can read them. Muijz feels cheated. There's more discussion. In the end things cool down. (Wikipedia:Achterkamertje/archief 2)

october 29 - Muijz reverts Waerths changes to the 'Kroeg'-page and gets banned. Waerth is furious, says some things he later regrets and bans himself. oscar blocks Muijz in order to postpone the whole discussion to the afternoon evening. oscar cancels his job for half that day, to make sure that a proper talk does take place. Elly and Rasbak call (in de Kroeg) for Muijz to be permanently banned. After midnight Waerth and Muijz in a joint statement apologize to the community. (Wikipedia:De kroeg)

october 30 - Muijz gets a second ban from Jimbo Wales personally for insulting GerardM on IRC

The previous entry (october 30) was entered by anonymous user 62.195.146.66 on 3 nov 2004 18:34 --Johan Lont 18 nov 2004 18:23 (CET)

november 8 - Muijz gets a third ban from Jimbo Wales personally for incivility and insulting behaviour

november 17 - It transpires that a private row of Muijz has "merrited" two articles on wikipedia. The person involved has asked for help from the moderators in resolving this issue. GerardM has started a discussion that may lead to the permanent ban of Muijz.

november 17, another point of view (Note that the above remark is from GerardM himself): GerardM asks the community to give Muijz a permanent ban. No one in the rest of the community believes there is enough reason for this. GerardM's suggestion can be seen as a hostile act towards Muijz. (Also, I think GerardM should have been the last person on NL wiki to add the note above without signing it.) Flyingbird 20 nov 2004 09:58 (CET)

I want to say something about the last named 'conflicts' - see Overleg Gebruiker:Elian/Information gathering#About the List of the conflicts Johan Lont 18 nov 2004 18:23 (CET)

Do you think something needs to be done about the situation?

Yes

1. Yes, that is why various people are working very hard to improve the situation. Some do so by trying to mediate; some by not getting involved in any conflicts, some by adding or refining guidelines, some by recruiting more moderators, some by apologizing, some by doing information gathering ;-) etc. Flyingbird 30 okt 2004 07:59 (CEST)
2. There is a conflict between the moderators and the users. Some persons make trouble, and quite a bit of people contest the authority of the moderators to keep law and order. This authority is not accepted by a lot of people. The moderators feel unable to do their job, and go on strike and resign. Hence, there has been a call for an arbitration commission, who can give a statement wether the moderators were justified in an action. In any case, a situation should be obtained were the moderators feel they can do their job without being lynched by the community. Danielm 30 okt 2004 10:02 (CEST)
3. Yes, productivity is very low due to fighting. A lot of people look at wikipedia as a way to relax. It needs to give a positive feeling (at least most of the time) for users to stay with the project. Negativity is the reason why some users (and moderators) left.
4. We need to get out of this situation before too many people get frustrated. One important thing to do is to keep in touch - even if we disagree. If we don't talk, the situation won't change. - Quistnix 30 okt 2004 11:00 (CEST)
5. yes, therefore i support elian's initiative to set up this page. oscar 3 nov 2004 17:42 (CET)

No

1. This single situation is just the symptom. But it appears as one in a series of gradually darkening conflicts. It's like each conflict sends the message that such conflicts are "normal". We need to find a way back to the sun. Aliter 30 okt 2004 21:13 (CEST)

Neutral

1. There are strong reasons to say yes, and strong reasons to say no. Yes: all attempts to change the situation for the better can help. No: to much attention for the problems can make the problems even worse. Dick Bos 4 nov 2004 20:36 (CET)

Do you think current guidelines are adequate to deal with the situation?

Yes

1. Yes, provided we see them as guidelines. That is, they do not express rules, but they suggest how things should work. They do not guarantee success; only we can do that. Aliter 30 okt 2004 21:13 (CEST)
2. And provided that we see them as how things are intended to be not as a juridical instrument; "it does not say that I cannot so I can" as long as the rules are interpreted for what they are, they are fine. When they are approached in a way to clubber others on the head no amount rules will be sufficient or adequate and, they will make wikipedia what it is not. Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia, all activities that are work against that goal are wrong. GerardM 4 nov 2004 13:51 (CET)
3. We need less guidelines, and more clarity about our goals. Dick Bos 4 nov 2004 20:39 (CET)
4. This conflict was more about the interpretation of the rules. According to me Muijz referred to the Voel je vrij en ga je gang (Feel free and go ahead) rule as a justification for his behaviour. For me this rule is an invitation to participate to Wikipedia in an positive way. Muijz used it (according to me again) to start a edit war. His interpretation was a very strict interpretation of this rule. So more guidelines can give more room for conflicts about those rules. Jan Lapère 4 nov 2004 22:09 (CET)

No

1. No, we keep refining them, adding guidelines and removing ones, see the next section. Flyingbird 30 okt 2004 07:55 (CEST)
2. Njet. Danielm 30 okt 2004 10:02 (CEST)
3. No, guidelines open the way to a discussion because a lot of them state : "Normally we do ......" or "In most cases it's best to.....". Guidelines make it possible that users state "in this case something else is better". Im my opinion we need fewer guidelines and only a few rules: "It is forbidden to....". Ch®is 30 okt 2004 10:54 (CEST)
4. There are too many guidelines. I've even seen someone writing new guidelines just to be able to refer to them in an ongoing discussion. Personally I don't take any guideline seriously because I've seen too many of them apear out of the blue. Bart van der Pligt 30 okt 2004 14:45 (CEST)
5. No, but then: how could they ever be? You cannot create rules for everything without abandoning the free character of Wikipedia. Open fora always attract those who argue for the sake of arguing. This is the downside of the WP ideal at work. -- BenTels 30 okt 2004 17:49 (CEST)
6. No, the guidelines/rules are too long & complicated. What we imho need are clear, short guidelines everyone can remember and respect. Bontenbal 1 nov 2004 09:58 (CET)
7. no, i am afraid most come from another stage-of-growth of nl:wikipedia. oscar 3 nov 2004 17:42 (CET)
8. No, there are far too many guidelines. Ad 3 nov 2004 18:20 (CET)
9. No, most guidelines should be transformed to rules. jeroenvrp 4 nov 2004 06:57 (CET)

Do you think guidelines should be changed? If yes, which?

Yes

1. Yes, guidelines will keep changing forever, insights change, circumstances change, that is only healthy! If I would know specific ones, I would simply change them or propose to do so on the corresponding discussion page. Flyingbird 30 okt 2004 07:54 (CEST)
2. Guidelines will always change. I think we should avoid making new guidelines for every situation. On the long term this will lead to too many of them. Guidelines should be as clear as possible, but we need no more guidelines than needed in 95% of the cases. For the other 5%, Wikipedians can communicate like adults. Quistnix 30 okt 2004 11:13 (CEST)
3. There should be a rule about 'being nice'. There should be a rule about how to take a deciding vote on issues that can not otherwise be resolved. There should be no guidelines. Bart van der Pligt 30 okt 2004 14:51 (CEST)
4. yes, i think the guidelines need an update. oscar 3 nov 2004 17:42 (CET)
5. Yes, they shoud be more concise and to the point. You read yourself silly before you have seen all the rules, regulations, tips etc. Ad 3 nov 2004 18:20 (CET)
6. Getting all the rules in one point is great. Then there are the written and the unwritten rules ... they have a different status and they are often seen as as important as the "real" rules. These rules evolve and catching them in one place will prove to be hard and it will only work for a short time as they do not evolve in one place. GerardM 4 nov 2004 14:05 (CET)

No

1. In the current situation, it has not been proven their was a lack of guidelines. In fact, there are a lot of guidelines both moderators and users can refer to. IMHO, there is perceived lack of guidelines. Danielm 30 okt 2004 10:02 (CEST)
2. What's the point? It's not the lack of guidelines that are the problem, it's the unwillingness of some people (different ones per argument) to work towards a common goal. No matter how many rules you institute, this will not change. There's nothing that will stop this, short of vetting people before they are allowed to post on the system. -- BenTels 30 okt 2004 17:52 (CEST)
3. No, the guidelines can work, if we set ourselves to working with them. We should probably keep a better eye on dead wood, though: Wordings that no longer describe the goings on. Aliter 30 okt 2004 21:13 (CEST)
4. There must be better and stricter guidelines/rules. Users, but especially moderators should follow them very strict. jeroenvrp 4 nov 2004 06:55 (CET)
5. We don't need more guidelines, or other guidelines. Obviously we do not quite agree on our common goals. Not in abstracto, not in concreto. So I think the most important thing is to discuss this first, and then start anew with the discussion on guidelines / rules, etc. Dick Bos 4 nov 2004 20:42 (CET)

Do you think certain behaviour (f.e. personal attacks) should be sanctioned?

Yes

1. Depends, if a lack of tact is the issue, clear feedback may be good enough to deal with certain conflicts. Third party mediation may be helpful in cases. Later note: Oh wait, you probably mean that disciplinary actions should be taken, not that certain actions should be approved/ratified.Flyingbird 30 okt 2004 07:52 (CEST)
2. Not that I get happy with sanctions, but yes, at some point, it should be sancioned. Danielm 30 okt 2004 10:02 (CEST)
3. If people repeatedly attack other persons directly via Wikipedia, sanctioning should be one means to make clear this is not the way to help the project. Quistnix 30 okt 2004 11:04 (CEST)
4. Certainly because it endangers the project. Everybody needs to know that behind the username there is a real person. You should respect the work and effort others have put in something, even if you disagree with it. The community dictates what should be done if there's a dispute and not 1 or 2 persons. Treat people the way you want to be treated and also in a way you would do if the person was in the same room. Ch®is 30 okt 2004 11:06 (CEST)
5. yes. no actions endangering this project should be simply tolerated. all problematical behaviour must at least be questioned, i have the feeling that many users are at the moment rather "sick-of-these-discussions" and avoid being involved (which i can understand but all too well); however, such problems should be tackled instead, i am afraid. not all can afford to just stand by and look. oscar 3 nov 2004 17:42 (CET)
6. Yes. Personal things should be discussed by other means, e.g. e-mail. Ad 3 nov 2004 18:20 (CET)
7. Yes. Ad hominem attacks should be sanctionized. Bontenbal 4 nov 2004 12:12 (CET)
8. People who frequent wikipedia do that for two reasons, to be informed and to inform. When there is an issue, it should be about what wikipedia is about and its content. These issues can and should be adressed in a non-personal way. When this is not the case it will lead to a bad atmosphere, people get edgy and leave or they get upset. This is contrary to what we want to achieve with the wikimedia projects and how we achieve things with wikimedia projects; we need cooperation to get our content and the quality of our content. Behaviour that prevent this cooperation threaten the goals of our projects. GerardM 4 nov 2004 14:20 (CET)

No

1. Preferably not. I'd rather be looking to avoid the problems than to counter them. Aliter 30 okt 2004 21:13 (CEST)
2. When things become personal, people should mail eachother privately. jeroenvrp 4 nov 2004 06:50 (CET)
3. I don't think this is the right moment to discuss this. The problems of the last period show that a community-wide reorientation on goals (and next on means) of our project is necessary. This is the only way I can explain the scale of troubles. If we do not agree on what we're working on, we can make books full of rules and think out hundreds of sanctions.... They will not solve the problem. Dick Bos 4 nov 2004 20:50 (CET)

Neutral

1. Depends on the situation too much for a general "yes" or "no" -- BenTels 30 okt 2004 17:54 (CEST)

Do you think user bans would be a solution to some of the problems?

(short term bans and/or longer bans)

Yes

1. Bans should not be taken lightly. They should be taken heavy, very heavy. It is the ultimate form of penalty. However, in case of real abuse of a user, there should not be a taboo on these penalties. Such a decision should not be done by a single person, allthough the entire community is not expected to reach consencus about it. Possible groups that would be in the position to take such a decision is an unanimous group of moderators, or an arbitration comittee. Danielm 30 okt 2004 10:02 (CEST)
2. But only if it's clear in what kind of situation a ban will be the result. It has to be objective. For example: 3 times involved in an edit-war means 24 hour ban, every new edit-war doubles that time, 2 days, 4 days, 8 days.... Same goes for abuse of moderator-rights, faul language or unnessesary attempt to damage a person. If more then, lets say, 10 users state that a certain behaviour needs a warning, one is given. At the third warning a 24-hour block is given same way as with the edit-war doubled if repeated. Ch®is 30 okt 2004 10:46 (CEST)
3. Short term bans should be taken more lightly. If a discussion is getting out of hand a 12 or 24 hour ban should be imposed immediatly (after a fair warning, that is), preferably on both parties. This is not meant to be seen as a humiliation or as taking sides, but as serving the interest of wikipedia as a whole. After the ban is lifted the bannees are expected to thank the person who was wise enough to ban them in the first place, after which they may continue their discussion in a normal way. Bart van der Pligt 30 okt 2004 15:04 (CEST)
4. Sort of; see below. Aliter 30 okt 2004 21:13 (CEST)
5. yes, very much depending on the situation however. i propose something like this: in case of radical changes in the night e.g., short term bans may help to postpone talk to a time when more wikipedians are online. long term bans only when it is a clear vandal. bans of registered users: up to 12 hours (depending on the time of day), to avoid escalation in a clear conflict or conflict to be, and to prepare a talk/negociation to be held afterwards (preferrably in the evening). long term bans for registered users: only after the community agrees on this. to give an example, we on the one hand are lucky not to have had serious trolls at nl:wikipedia, but at the same time, we lack experience with this phenomenon. for more information, see meta:Trolling. oscar 3 nov 2004 17:42 (CET)
   1. to make this point more clear, i will explain my blocking of oct, 29. my reason to block, was to simply prevent yet another avalanche, another nl:wikipedia-wide discussion with many users, many frustrations, many opinions, many sub-topics, just like before. when blocking, i chose therefore for 12 hours, so the block would be over in the evening, when more users would be there, hoping in the mean time to talk by email and irc to start resolving the differences. this happened exactly thus. so, in the end, troubles were over in about 14 hours, instead of 14 days (last time we were losing appreciated users who got disgusted alongway, this time we did not lose a single person, did we? yes, we did, for the time being: Martijn, 20 minutes before the block). i find short-time blocking to be an effective instrument to prevent things get out of hand in this particular case. in the end, what's a few hours block for 1 person compared to days and weeks of stress for a whole community? to not allow for this possibility in wikipedia, would in real life mean something like this: to not allow a person to be picked up to simply be questioned by the police before he is sentenced all the way through, i think. of course any blocking should be done with greatest care, but it simply is a good way in special circumstances, like last week. oscar 3 nov 2004 18:51 (CET)

No

1. Only in the case of real vandalism, which is not the issue here, so no. If bans are deemed necessary at all, I'd opt for incremental ones, first ban: 6 hours; second ban: 12 hours; third ban: 24 hours; fourth ban: 2 days, ... with a reset of the increments every 3 months or so. Hence no permanent bans at all! Flyingbird 30 okt 2004 07:50 (CEST)
2. It has no use banning long time users, because it only genergtes hate and that is not the meaning of it.Bean 19 30 okt 2004 15:31 (CEST)
3. Aside from the fact that User/IP bans are not technically reliable ways of getting rid of a given person, I don't think that temporary bans make a real impression on those who fight just to fight. And, like Bean remarks, there is the risk of pissing people off (and not just the ones being banned). -- BenTels 30 okt 2004 17:58 (CEST)
4. No, not really. Bans will be lifted and things may (and will) start again. Ad 3 nov 2004 18:20 (CET)
5. Generally no. Only when a user is vandalizing and isn't reacting to questions about that in a certain amount of time. jeroenvrp 4 nov 2004 06:52 (CET)
6. No, only in cases of vandalism. In other cases it will only be used to demonstrate how right one is: "there were no more arguments, they could only stop me by a ban". We must prevent these situations, by creating a strong community, that can resist attacks by ignoring them. Dick Bos 4 nov 2004 20:55 (CET)

Do you feel that there is too much distance between moderators and other users?

Yes

1. If a moderator would really be just a trusted user with a few extra edit options, no one would even think of making a page like Wikipedia:Steunbetuiging aan moderators. ("Supporting our moderators"), or of sending emails to 'moderator colleagues' with proposals to gang up on a user. Bart van der Pligt 30 okt 2004 06:18 (CEST)
2. In practice, alas. Maybe we should call moderators the corveeërs (cleaners/janitors) like some other people suggested. Flyingbird 30 okt 2004 07:46 (CEST)
3. Yes. For normal users there is little transparancy in the actions and (perhaps even more important) the motivations of the moderators. The only thing normal users can do is ‘believing’ or ‘trusting’ the moderators. The users cannot really ‘check’ the moderators. — Sander Spek. 1 nov 2004 09:49 (CET)
   p.s. Today, I (and probably others too) found out the existence of a role called ‘observer’. (See the Wikipedia-NL mailing list.) This role can reduce transparancy and increase trust.
4. yes, but not in general. it is different per moderator with regards to every user, so i say: this is a complex picture. i sense however, that this is a general feeling, since i hear it more often. oscar 3 nov 2004 17:42 (CET)
5. During the last 'propblems', yes. Before that, no. jeroenvrp 4 nov 2004 06:54 (CET)

No

1. There is too little distance. The current moderators have never refused a request from the community. However, they have failed to take joint action to restore order when the community is hopelessly divided, because they continously kept discussing with the hopeless divided community. Danielm 30 okt 2004 10:02 (CEST)
2. The moderators could write a artricle too, just like anybody else and that's good. I find it okay that they can do special things, because otherwise it became a gigantic big mess.Bean 19 30 okt 2004 19:02 (CEST)
3. No. Ad 3 nov 2004 18:20 (CET)
4. No. I never actually knew who was moderator and who wasn't. Bontenbal 4 nov 2004 12:15 (CET)
5. Never. On the contrary. They behave like a part of the community, and that's what they are. And they are - to my humble opinion - the precious heart of Wikipedia. We need to behave solidary to them. We need to assist them as much as we can. We must behave ourselves in a way to show our gratitude for the work they do for the community. Dick Bos 4 nov 2004 21:02 (CET)

Neutral

A moderator is just a user. In fact, in these conflicts most were part of the "other users". But there's now a perceived entity of the moderators as a group, which we should avoid. Aliter 30 okt 2004 21:13 (CEST)

If yes, what could be changed to level down this distance?

1. More moderators. It should be common practice for every trusted user to be a moderator, unless he or she doesn't want to. Bart van der Pligt 30 okt 2004 14:54 (CEST)
2. Moderating is hard, cut the guys some slack. It's mostly attacks moderators that will cause the natural reaction of forming a front. But moderating is hard enough, don't mkae it worse by moderating in your own discussions. Aliter 30 okt 2004 21:13 (CEST)
3. Moderators should provide users with more information, on what they did and why they did it. Also, the addition of a large group of new moderators might take the edge of moderator-cabal-conspiracy theories. — Sander Spek. 1 nov 2004 09:54 (CET)
4. more moderators and a different procedure, such as now being implemented on Wikipedia:aanmelding moderators. and more friendly contact and mutual compliments :-) oscar 3 nov 2004 17:42 (CET)
5. Stricter rules. If a moderator is not acting according those rules he/she should resign. He/she can always ask the community to make him/her a moderator again. jeroenvrp 4 nov 2004 07:00 (CET)

What would you suggest to do to restore the harmony in this project?

1. Increase awareness that fellow wikipedians are reasonable people, and that fights harm the project Flyingbird 30 okt 2004 07:43 (CEST)
2. Remove the troublemaking elements (not literally). Second, create an atmosphere in which moderators can do their job without having to deeply apologise (to some people), promise not doing again etc. after taking actions to restore other, create an atmosphere in which they can do their jobs. Danielm 30 okt 2004 10:02 (CEST)
3. First step: discuss with the people involved directly, and try to find out which underlying problems there are, if any. Next step: try to solve the major issues in a way that pleases most users. Last step: close the cases solved. If anyone disagrees, he or she should not bring it up for discussion again for a period of at least six months. Quistnix 30 okt 2004 11:20 (CEST)
4. Stop exegerating about the so called lack of harmony. In the recent conflicts, almost every user has behaved in a decent way. The ones who haven't, have apologised. Don't confuse 'difference of opinion' with 'lack of harmony'. I expect several pages of discussion about certain issues in the next few weeks. Don't call the people who raised these issues 'hostile'. Be patient. If necessary end the discussion with a community vote. Don't move conflicts to the 'Kroeg'-page. Bart van der Pligt 30 okt 2004 15:18 (CEST)
5. Close down all editing for a week. Those still with us afterwards should have learned the WIkipedia is too valuable to waste time on personal remarks. No, I'm not kidding. We really need a drastic wake-up call. Aliter 30 okt 2004 21:13 (CEST)
6. focussing on the project as the first and only touchstone of why we are here. avoiding personal attacks or insinuations. more mutual respect. in case of problems: discussions about facts instead of opinions about the other's alleged motivation. oscar 3 nov 2004 17:42 (CET)
7. Make sure that everyone is aware that without non-verbal communication and intonation, misunderstandings are very common between people. This requires (IMHO) also a different way of communication: be (overly) polite, be fair, say thank you often. Just to make sure the other person understands your good intentions... Bontenbal 4 nov 2004 12:29 (CET)
8. I read a number of excellent suggestions of my fellow-Wikipedians above. What I wanted to suggest I did already in previous points. I think that the above suggestions show that there is a very large base of continuing our work. Dick Bos 4 nov 2004 21:07 (CET)
9. The problem was an edit war, not about the content of an article but about the form (i.e. links to an other wikiproject). I think anyone who is participating in this fantastic project should behave in a decent and responsible way. Share your knowledge, and if you get involved in a conflict the form is not worth an escalation. Content should be something we concerned about. Every registered user should be aware of his responsibility about Wikipedia.Jan Lapère 4 nov 2004 22:23 (CET)

Do you want help/input/opinions from people from outside of the dutch wikipedia?

This refers to Jimbo, Anthere and me. I won't be hurt or offended if you answer no. --Elian

Yes

1. Yes, I appreciate it, but mainly in the form of advise, not in the form of bans. Flyingbird 30 okt 2004 07:44 (CEST)
2. The moderators are at this time completely not in the position to restore order. It will help if someone else does. Danielm 30 okt 2004 10:02 (CEST)
3. Advise from experienced people is always welcome. Quistnix 30 okt 2004 11:06 (CEST)
4. Yes Ch®is 30 okt 2004 11:11 (CEST)
5. yes, after all, we are all part of a bigger project, of which nl:wikipedia is a part. oscar 3 nov 2004 17:42 (CET)
6. Yes GerardM 4 nov 2004 14:24 (CET)

No

1. I would if it did not refer to you guys. No matter how it's done your help will always give the impression of a slap on the wrist. Still, since Jimbo already stepped into it, the damage is already done. Now just get on with it, and drag us back to where the sun shines, if you have the authority to do that. Aliter 30 okt 2004 21:13 (CEST)
2. No, we should be able to fix our own quarrels and arguments. Ad 3 nov 2004 18:20 (CET)
3. No, we are mature enough to deal with our own problems. jeroenvrp 4 nov 2004 07:02 (CET)
4. No, should not be necessary. Bontenbal 4 nov 2004 12:30 (CET)

Neutral

1. I want to thank the three of you very much for your help. It's really good that you organise in this way the growth of harmony and cooperation in our community. On the other hand I'm a bit ashamed that we stupid Dutchies could not fix this ourselves with less noise! Dick Bos 4 nov 2004 21:10 (CET)