WMF and Community Changes Wishlist

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat May 24, 2014 2:14 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote: Hmmm, did I read this wrong, or did Pete Forsyth make a boo-boo sending it to the whole damn mailing list?

What a breathtaking fuckup. I was unable to prevent myself from saying "holy shit" out loud as I read that.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat May 24, 2014 2:16 pm

thekohser wrote:I wonder how Gerard defines "failed"?

He might want to ask himself, since the Church of Scientology is still doing pretty well, last that I heard.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat May 24, 2014 2:19 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Geni is talking tosh of course...

Anyone who would write this to follow a point they're making in a discussion:

geni wrote: (XKCD 1357 alt text)

immediately marks themselves as someone to whom no attention should be paid, ever.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sat May 24, 2014 5:57 pm

A few different problems that I have with wikipedia is aptly demonstrated by this one little edit.

An eight year old boy added a selfie to the article January Magazine eight days ago. It's still there.

http://archive.today/55uGg

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat May 24, 2014 6:04 pm

tarantino wrote:A few different problems that I have with wikipedia is aptly demonstrated by this one little edit.

An eight year old boy added a selfie to the article January Magazine eight days ago. It's still there.

http://archive.today/55uGg

Oh yeah, how about this link that fixed 5 year old vandalism or this link that recently fixed vandalism that was 4 years old.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Sun May 25, 2014 2:11 am

thekohser wrote: Anyway, I don't understand what you mean by "so bans, blocks, or whatever shouldn't get in our way". Are you suggesting that if the "Change For The Better" discussion is opened up on the English Wikipedia, that if a banned editor wishes to chime in, they would be allowed to do so? If that is really what you're proposing, you truly have no idea what you're talking about. But, maybe I just misunderstand what you're saying.

FWIW, I am not banned on Meta.

Nope, your situation actually made me think of this. I remembered that you mentioned you were banned on some of the Wikimedia sites, but not on Meta. I was suggesting that if there is a place (such as Meta) where fewer (ideally, no) people here are blocked, we should use that. Regardless, I'm sure I still have no idea what I'm talking about.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Sun May 25, 2014 2:18 am

wllm wrote:
thekohser wrote: Anyway, I don't understand what you mean by "so bans, blocks, or whatever shouldn't get in our way". Are you suggesting that if the "Change For The Better" discussion is opened up on the English Wikipedia, that if a banned editor wishes to chime in, they would be allowed to do so? If that is really what you're proposing, you truly have no idea what you're talking about. But, maybe I just misunderstand what you're saying.

FWIW, I am not banned on Meta.
Nope, your situation actually made me think of this. I remembered that you mentioned you were banned on some of the Wikimedia sites, but not on Meta. I was suggesting that if there is a place (such as Meta) where fewer (ideally, no) people here are blocked, we should use that. Regardless, I'm sure I still have no idea what I'm talking about.

Wil, you do not know wikipedians.
Meta cannot be used for that purpose. Please trust me on that.
Also you may want to read that Wikipedia:Ignore Meta (T-H-L) it was written by an arbitrator Beeblebrox (T-C-L) just after he had that to say about Meta on Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=3473654

fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it

I am not sure about you, but if Greg will start discussing English Wikipedia problems on meta, he would be blocked on Meta too.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Sun May 25, 2014 2:18 am

wllm wrote:Nope, your situation actually made me think of this. I remembered that you mentioned you were banned on some of the Wikimedia sites, but not on Meta. I was suggesting that if there is a place (such as Meta) where fewer (ideally, no) people here are blocked, we should use that. Regardless, I'm sure I still have no idea what I'm talking about.

Almost nobody uses Meta, though. Furthermore, MediaWiki discussion pages are a terrible way to have a conversation; it's tedious to tell what's been added and even more tedious to ensure that nobody is editing your comments, misattributing content to someone else, or otherwise being sneaky. This is because nobody "owns" a talk page and everyone can edit everything. Yes, it's "transparent" in that all of the diffs are on the history tab, but on a highly active talk page the edit rate can be extremely high and it can take a lot of effort to sort through all the diffs.

As an example, if you want to find a post of mine here in which I said "cucumbers are blue", you can do that very quickly using the board's search function. How would you go about finding the same thing on Wikipedia? The only way to do that is to go through every last one of my edits (of which there are thousands) and examine each diff to see if I said "cucumbers are blue". Classic faux transparency: the data you want may be there but there are no aids at all to finding it.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun May 25, 2014 2:24 am

neved wrote:Wil, you do not know wikipedians.
Meta cannot be used for that purpose. Please trust me on that.
Also you may want to read that Wikipedia:Ignore Meta (T-H-L) it was written by an arbitrator Beeblebrox (T-C-L) just after he had that to say about Meta on Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=3473654
fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it

That's some mighty fine leadership there by arbitrator Beeblebrox.

everyking · Unread post by **everyking** » Sun May 25, 2014 3:26 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
neved wrote:Wil, you do not know wikipedians.
Meta cannot be used for that purpose. Please trust me on that.
Also you may want to read that Wikipedia:Ignore Meta (T-H-L) it was written by an arbitrator Beeblebrox (T-C-L) just after he had that to say about Meta on Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=3473654
fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it
That's some mighty fine leadership there by arbitrator Beeblebrox.

Whenever I see him around, it seems like he's always employing the kind of invective that would get most other users blocked. Who is this guy and how did he get elected?

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun May 25, 2014 3:44 am

everyking wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it
That's some mighty fine leadership there by arbitrator Beeblebrox.
Whenever I see him around, it seems like he's always employing the kind of invective that would get most other users blocked. Who is this guy and how did he get elected?

What with him and Floquenbeam, we seem to have quite a team on this year's Arbcom.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Sun May 25, 2014 4:44 am

everyking wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:
neved wrote:Wil, you do not know wikipedians.
Meta cannot be used for that purpose. Please trust me on that.
Also you may want to read that Wikipedia:Ignore Meta (T-H-L) it was written by an arbitrator Beeblebrox (T-C-L) just after he had that to say about Meta on Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=3473654
fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it
That's some mighty fine leadership there by arbitrator Beeblebrox.
Whenever I see him around, it seems like he's always employing the kind of invective that would get most other users blocked. Who is this guy and how did he get elected?

Some time ago Beeblebrox was blocked because the blocking admin believed the account was hacked. How come that an experienced admin Bwilkins blocked another experienced admin as a "compromised account"? Well, he explained the block at AN "user Beeblebrox and his talkpage are on my watchlist. Having viewed the most recent series of edits to his talkpage, including the final one with the edit summary "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT", I have blocked Beeblebrox indefinitely as a possibly compromised account. This spate of behaviours does not appear to be consistent with Beeb's usual behaviour. Does anyone think we need an emergency desysop?" The whole ordeal was very funny on many levels. Hasn't Bwilkins known that it was how Beeblebrox usually speaks? But the funniest part was that, when the community (whatever it is) made sure the account was not comprised, Beeblebrox was promptly unblocked and a few months later elected to be an arbitrator.

Flameau · Unread post by **Flameau** » Sun May 25, 2014 5:30 am

Kumioko wrote:
tarantino wrote:A few different problems that I have with wikipedia is aptly demonstrated by this one little edit.

An eight year old boy added a selfie to the article January Magazine eight days ago. It's still there.

http://archive.today/55uGg
Oh yeah, how about this link that fixed 5 year old vandalism or this link that recently fixed vandalism that was 4 years old.

Both were not rendering, but removing vandalism - regardless of its age - is good. The problem of that nature has been mostly resolved with better tools, but some issues obviously remain.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sun May 25, 2014 8:53 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
neved wrote:Wil, you do not know wikipedians.
Meta cannot be used for that purpose. Please trust me on that.
Also you may want to read that Wikipedia:Ignore Meta (T-H-L) it was written by an arbitrator Beeblebrox (T-C-L) just after he had that to say about Meta on Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=3473654
fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it
That's some mighty fine leadership there by arbitrator Beeblebrox.

He's hardly a model to follow, but he has a point. Meta is only marginally better in several areas than Commons.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun May 25, 2014 9:17 am

Ah, another excellent out burst by Beeblebrox showing why they are not a suitable arbitrator.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun May 25, 2014 1:11 pm

tarantino wrote:A few different problems that I have with wikipedia is aptly demonstrated by this one little edit.

An eight year old boy added a selfie to the article January Magazine eight days ago. It's still there.

http://archive.today/55uGg

The photo's now been deleted from Wikipedia, but fortunately some kind soul has preserved it on Archive.today.

Neotarf · Unread post by **Neotarf** » Sat May 31, 2014 10:14 am

wllm wrote:
HRIP7 wrote: 8. Make project admins subject to reconfirmation at least every two years.
Several people mentioned two-year terms. Is that a significant number in WP years, or did everyone come to it by Goldilocks principle?

The Request for Adminship (RFA) process is generally seen as a potentially horrible experience, and is sometimes referred to as "running the gauntlet". Although some sail through the confirmation process with little drama, for others it is enough to make them stop editing. It is just not fair to put admins through this process every year. On the other hand, three years is much too long to put up with a problem admin.

The whole point of term limits is accountability. The thought of having to answer for some questionable action three years in the future is unlikely to deter would-be abusive admins. But if they were coming up for reconfirmation in the next year, maybe they would think twice before committing themselves to some controversial action. Admins who wished to take a break could move easily in and out of the admin pool, and the current dehumanizing process of removing admins would be unnecessary.

Neotarf · Unread post by **Neotarf** » Sat May 31, 2014 10:47 am

Kumioko wrote:

I would argue on the organization standpoint a little thought. This already exists in the form of the arbcom, the admins and functionaries and the WMF. The problem is there is no direct relationship or oversight. The Admins should be policing the editors, the bureaucrats the Admins and the Stewards and or the Arbcom policing the Bureaus. The WMF should then be running oversight over the Arbcom.

The one exception to this is Arbitration Enforcement, since policy specifically allows the ArbCom to "form subcommittees or designate individuals for particular tasks or roles". But the selection process for AE admins is opaque; the pool of AE admins has gotten smaller and smaller until now it is run by one or two individuals, who have been around longer than most of the arbs, and who dictate to the Arbcom rather than the other way around.

How did AE go so wrong?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat May 31, 2014 2:28 pm

Neotarf wrote:How did AE go so wrong?

It's the usual problem with Wikipedia. There's no structure sufficiently strong to ensure the rule of law and reason, so those with the most persistence and brutality tend to win.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat May 31, 2014 2:58 pm

Neotarf wrote:
Kumioko wrote:

I would argue on the organization standpoint a little thought. This already exists in the form of the arbcom, the admins and functionaries and the WMF. The problem is there is no direct relationship or oversight. The Admins should be policing the editors, the bureaucrats the Admins and the Stewards and or the Arbcom policing the Bureaus. The WMF should then be running oversight over the Arbcom.
The one exception to this is Arbitration Enforcement, since policy specifically allows the ArbCom to "form subcommittees or designate individuals for particular tasks or roles". But the selection process for AE admins is opaque; the pool of AE admins has gotten smaller and smaller until now it is run by one or two individuals, who have been around longer than most of the arbs, and who dictate to the Arbcom rather than the other way around.

How did AE go so wrong?

AE went wrong because the Arbcom and the community at large has allowed 2 or 3 admins with views on the extreme end of the spectrum like Sandstein to homestead and do whatever they want. Since they are only banning and blocking folks under Arbcom sanctions they can do whatever the want and for the most part no one will argue. And even if they did argue, the admins at AE have repeatedly demonstrated that they will simply ignore anyone who isn't an admin. Because their view is that admins are the only comments that matter and regular editors don't have a clue.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat May 31, 2014 8:44 pm

Kumioko wrote:AE went wrong because the Arbcom and the community at large has allowed 2 or 3 admins with views on the extreme end of the spectrum like Sandstein to homestead and do whatever they want. Since they are only banning and blocking folks under Arbcom sanctions they can do whatever the want and for the most part no one will argue. And even if they did argue, the admins at AE have repeatedly demonstrated that they will simply ignore anyone who isn't an admin. Because their view is that admins are the only comments that matter and regular editors don't have a clue.

Bullshit. AE, and Arbcom in general, went wrong in 2004 when Jimbo set it all up.
He installed Bad People, and they installed other Bad People. Just that simple.

everyking · Unread post by **everyking** » Sat May 31, 2014 9:10 pm

Neotarf wrote:
wllm wrote:
HRIP7 wrote: 8. Make project admins subject to reconfirmation at least every two years.
Several people mentioned two-year terms. Is that a significant number in WP years, or did everyone come to it by Goldilocks principle?
The Request for Adminship (RFA) process is generally seen as a potentially horrible experience, and is sometimes referred to as "running the gauntlet". Although some sail through the confirmation process with little drama, for others it is enough to make them stop editing. It is just not fair to put admins through this process every year. On the other hand, three years is much too long to put up with a problem admin.

The whole point of term limits is accountability. The thought of having to answer for some questionable action three years in the future is unlikely to deter would-be abusive admins. But if they were coming up for reconfirmation in the next year, maybe they would think twice before committing themselves to some controversial action. Admins who wished to take a break could move easily in and out of the admin pool, and the current dehumanizing process of removing admins would be unnecessary.

I don't think term limits are necessary. All we need is a de-sysopping process that can be initiated by the community. Most admins do their job well. The problem is that the system tends to reward boldness (aggression or harshness), so just a minority of very assertive admins can exercise a large amount of practically unchecked power, while the views of less authoritarian admins, as well as the wider community, tend to be ignored. We need a way to hold that first group, that small minority, accountable to the rest. I suggest a de-sysopping process combined with a rule that no content contributor can be blocked without endorsement from a community discussion.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat May 31, 2014 9:20 pm

everyking wrote:I don't think term limits are necessary. All we need is a de-sysopping process that can be initiated by the community. Most admins do their job well. The problem is that the system tends to reward boldness (aggression or harshness), so just a minority of very assertive admins can exercise a large amount of practically unchecked power, while the views of less authoritarian admins, as well as the wider community, tend to be ignored. We need a way to hold that first group, that small minority, accountable to the rest. I suggest a de-sysopping process combined with a rule that no content contributor can be blocked without endorsement from a community discussion.

That would suffice -- but it simply won't happen. Too many admins will fight and backstab to keep things as they are.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat May 31, 2014 11:41 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Kumioko wrote:AE went wrong because the Arbcom and the community at large has allowed 2 or 3 admins with views on the extreme end of the spectrum like Sandstein to homestead and do whatever they want. Since they are only banning and blocking folks under Arbcom sanctions they can do whatever the want and for the most part no one will argue. And even if they did argue, the admins at AE have repeatedly demonstrated that they will simply ignore anyone who isn't an admin. Because their view is that admins are the only comments that matter and regular editors don't have a clue.
Bullshit. AE, and Arbcom in general, went wrong in 2004 when Jimbo set it all up.
He installed Bad People, and they installed other Bad People. Just that simple.

Remarkably similar to WMF engineering.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:07 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Kumioko wrote:AE went wrong because the Arbcom and the community at large has allowed 2 or 3 admins with views on the extreme end of the spectrum like Sandstein to homestead and do whatever they want. Since they are only banning and blocking folks under Arbcom sanctions they can do whatever the want and for the most part no one will argue. And even if they did argue, the admins at AE have repeatedly demonstrated that they will simply ignore anyone who isn't an admin. Because their view is that admins are the only comments that matter and regular editors don't have a clue.
Bullshit. AE, and Arbcom in general, went wrong in 2004 when Jimbo set it all up.
He installed Bad People, and they installed other Bad People. Just that simple.

Well yeah I agree with that, AE is by its very purpose the ultimate hangout for bullies because they can do whatever they want (even more than they already do) and not have to worry. Its central in the cycle of corruption in the project right next to the Arbcom.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:45 am

Kumioko wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Kumioko wrote:AE went wrong because the Arbcom and the community at large has allowed 2 or 3 admins with views on the extreme end of the spectrum like Sandstein to homestead and do whatever they want. Since they are only banning and blocking folks under Arbcom sanctions they can do whatever the want and for the most part no one will argue. And even if they did argue, the admins at AE have repeatedly demonstrated that they will simply ignore anyone who isn't an admin. Because their view is that admins are the only comments that matter and regular editors don't have a clue.
Bullshit. AE, and Arbcom in general, went wrong in 2004 when Jimbo set it all up.
He installed Bad People, and they installed other Bad People. Just that simple.
Well yeah I agree with that, AE is by its very purpose the ultimate hangout for bullies because they can do whatever they want (even more than they already do) and not have to worry. Its central in the cycle of corruption in the project right next to the Arbcom.

Administrators who seek out Arbitration Enforcement are sadists.
They enjoy committing wiki-murder.

There's just no other explanation.

everyking · Unread post by **everyking** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:27 am

Vigilant wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Kumioko wrote:AE went wrong because the Arbcom and the community at large has allowed 2 or 3 admins with views on the extreme end of the spectrum like Sandstein to homestead and do whatever they want. Since they are only banning and blocking folks under Arbcom sanctions they can do whatever the want and for the most part no one will argue. And even if they did argue, the admins at AE have repeatedly demonstrated that they will simply ignore anyone who isn't an admin. Because their view is that admins are the only comments that matter and regular editors don't have a clue.
Bullshit. AE, and Arbcom in general, went wrong in 2004 when Jimbo set it all up.
He installed Bad People, and they installed other Bad People. Just that simple.
Well yeah I agree with that, AE is by its very purpose the ultimate hangout for bullies because they can do whatever they want (even more than they already do) and not have to worry. Its central in the cycle of corruption in the project right next to the Arbcom.
Administrators who seek out Arbitration Enforcement are sadists.
They enjoy committing wiki-murder.

There's just no other explanation.

Like any authority, the ArbCom is powerless without having others to enforce its will. While the arbitrators themselves might be deaf to reason, it might be useful to engage these "enforcers" with some frank dialogue about why they are abusing other Wikipedians. It won't do to just say you're following orders, will it? Anyone who wants to do it needs to be able to explain himself, and in my experience they are incapable of doing so. If they were always expected to explain themselves, to defend themselves before the community, maybe they would grow tired of "enforcement". It's easy when you're just pushing buttons like some automaton--critical thinking requires a lot more work.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:52 pm

everyking wrote:a rule that no content contributor can be blocked without endorsement from a community discussion.

That sounds excellent, but there are two problems:

* You can have endless argument about who is a "content contributor".
* As a rule, "community" discussions just involve a handful of unrepresentative people, many if not most of whom are not very good content contributors.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 3:29 pm

Poetlister wrote:
everyking wrote:a rule that no content contributor can be blocked without endorsement from a community discussion.
That sounds excellent, but there are two problems:

* You can have endless argument about who is a "content contributor".
* As a rule, "community" discussions just involve a handful of unrepresentative people, many if not most of whom are not very good content contributors.

Another problem is (and sorry to keep bringing up my situation but it resonates in a lot of the discussions here) as can be seen in my ban, it doesn't take much to be a "community" discussion. In fact, if a dozen abusive editors emailed or IRC'ed and decided to do something, they could have a vote on the Village pump, AN, ANI or even on a user talk page and get a consensus for the community. All but a couple of the ones that banned me from Wikipedia are the same ones I have been saying were abusive for a while now. Yet they are still allowed to keeping abusing other editors and the tools and I am banned. So frankly I don't put much stock in the community at the moment nor do I have any faith in the WF or the Arbcom. What Wikipedia needs is a total overhaul of the system from top to bottom.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:51 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
everyking wrote:a rule that no content contributor can be blocked without endorsement from a community discussion.
That sounds excellent, but there are two problems:

* You can have endless argument about who is a "content contributor".
* As a rule, "community" discussions just involve a handful of unrepresentative people, many if not most of whom are not very good content contributors.
Another problem is (and sorry to keep bringing up my situation but it resonates in a lot of the discussions here) as can be seen in my ban, it doesn't take much to be a "community" discussion. In fact, if a dozen abusive editors emailed or IRC'ed and decided to do something, they could have a vote on the Village pump, AN, ANI or even on a user talk page and get a consensus for the community. All but a couple of the ones that banned me from Wikipedia are the same ones I have been saying were abusive for a while now. Yet they are still allowed to keeping abusing other editors and the tools and I am banned. So frankly I don't put much stock in the community at the moment nor do I have any faith in the WF or the Arbcom. What Wikipedia needs is a total overhaul of the system from top to bottom.

Wasn't that exactly my second point? One issue is that some of these discussions do take place in obscure corners. More than once, I've been told that a discussion and "vote" on the talk page of one article is binding on any vaguely related article.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:00 pm

Poetlister wrote:Wasn't that exactly my second point? One issue is that some of these discussions do take place in obscure corners. More than once, I've been told that a discussion and "vote" on the talk page of one article is binding on any vaguely related article.

This is a systemic issue in Wikipedia. When I was on the Communications Committee of the WMF, one of the things I noticed was that Wikimedia's internal communications are badly "siloed". This in itself is not unusual; siloed communications are a common problem in organizations. I was tasked to develop an internal communications strategy that avoided this issue, but this never came to fruition because of resistance from high-level people in the Foundation, most notably (but not exclusively) Erik Moeller.

Wikipedia, and Wikimedia, internal communications are fractured by design. There are a number of reasons for this, but the two top ones are information control (if information is tightly controlled, it becomes valuable, and those who are in the know have power over those who are not) and forum shopping (by having many different decision forums, someone seeking a favorable decision can forum shop to get that decision, then use the support of that forum to logroll that decision elsewhere). Echoes of these dynamics can be found all over Wikipedia and Wikimedia.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:04 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Wasn't that exactly my second point? One issue is that some of these discussions do take place in obscure corners. More than once, I've been told that a discussion and "vote" on the talk page of one article is binding on any vaguely related article.
This is a systemic issue in Wikipedia. When I was on the Communications Committee of the WMF, one of the things I noticed was that Wikimedia's internal communications are badly "siloed". This in itself is not unusual; siloed communications are a common problem in organizations. I was tasked to develop an internal communications strategy that avoided this issue, but this never came to fruition because of resistance from high-level people in the Foundation, most notably (but not exclusively) Erik Moeller.

Wikipedia, and Wikimedia, internal communications are fractured by design. There are a number of reasons for this, but the two top ones are information control (if information is tightly controlled, it becomes valuable, and those who are in the know have power over those who are not) and forum shopping (by having many different decision forums, someone seeking a favorable decision can forum shop to get that decision, then use the support of that forum to logroll that decision elsewhere). Echoes of these dynamics can be found all over Wikipedia and Wikimedia.

TL;DR: Erik Mo:eller is a cunt.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:21 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Wasn't that exactly my second point? One issue is that some of these discussions do take place in obscure corners. More than once, I've been told that a discussion and "vote" on the talk page of one article is binding on any vaguely related article.
This is a systemic issue in Wikipedia. When I was on the Communications Committee of the WMF, one of the things I noticed was that Wikimedia's internal communications are badly "siloed". This in itself is not unusual; siloed communications are a common problem in organizations. I was tasked to develop an internal communications strategy that avoided this issue, but this never came to fruition because of resistance from high-level people in the Foundation, most notably (but not exclusively) Erik Moeller.

Wikipedia, and Wikimedia, internal communications are fractured by design. There are a number of reasons for this, but the two top ones are information control (if information is tightly controlled, it becomes valuable, and those who are in the know have power over those who are not) and forum shopping (by having many different decision forums, someone seeking a favorable decision can forum shop to get that decision, then use the support of that forum to logroll that decision elsewhere). Echoes of these dynamics can be found all over Wikipedia and Wikimedia.

It would be interesting to see some data about how much of the posts for a given forum (mailinglist, noticeboard, etc.) are from an insider group, and what fraction of those people are in "positions of trust". AN and AN/I, for example, both tend to have a good number of non-admin regulars who just sort of hang out there, and presumably have some effect on decisions made on those boards.

everyking · Unread post by **everyking** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:29 pm

Poetlister wrote:
everyking wrote:a rule that no content contributor can be blocked without endorsement from a community discussion.
That sounds excellent, but there are two problems:

* You can have endless argument about who is a "content contributor".
* As a rule, "community" discussions just involve a handful of unrepresentative people, many if not most of whom are not very good content contributors.

I suppose a simple definition is anyone who has contributed to articles and isn't a vandal.

You know, way back when, when adminship was "no big deal" and it was described as just a "mop", it was only vandals, for the most part, who were blocked on the authority of individual admins. Blocking a content contributor was a big deal, and there would be lots and lots of discussion about it. Then, as the project grew, there was this tendency for admins to start unilaterally blocking content contributors who, for some reason or another, they didn't approve of. I fussed and hollered an awful lot about admins doing that; I said they ought to bring it forward for discussion before acting, and I particularly didn't like the way certain admins seemed to relish acting like petty thugs. But the ArbCom didn't like me saying that kind of stuff and made me shut up.

I think that tendency towards giving admins so much discretion with the block button has caused tremendous problems. It has made it so contributors are devalued and unappreciated, like expendable cogs, and that drives people away. Let admins block vandals all they like, but when it comes to content contributors there should be a discussion beforehand.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:34 am

everyking wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
everyking wrote:a rule that no content contributor can be blocked without endorsement from a community discussion.
That sounds excellent, but there are two problems:

* You can have endless argument about who is a "content contributor".
* As a rule, "community" discussions just involve a handful of unrepresentative people, many if not most of whom are not very good content contributors.
I suppose a simple definition is anyone who has contributed to articles and isn't a vandal.

You know, way back when, when adminship was "no big deal" and it was described as just a "mop", it was only vandals, for the most part, who were blocked on the authority of individual admins. Blocking a content contributor was a big deal, and there would be lots and lots of discussion about it. Then, as the project grew, there was this tendency for admins to start unilaterally blocking content contributors who, for some reason or another, they didn't approve of. I fussed and hollered an awful lot about admins doing that; I said they ought to bring it forward for discussion before acting, and I particularly didn't like the way certain admins seemed to relish acting like petty thugs. But the ArbCom didn't like me saying that kind of stuff and made me shut up.

I think that tendency towards giving admins so much discretion with the block button has caused tremendous problems. It has made it so contributors are devalued and unappreciated, like expendable cogs, and that drives people away. Let admins block vandals all they like, but when it comes to content contributors there should be a discussion beforehand.

It would be nice to have a rule that every block more than say 24 hours must be confirmed by a second admin. Of course that would be of only limited value, since it's easy enough for most admins to call a friend, but it would help a bit.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:25 am

Poetlister wrote: It would be nice to have a rule that every block more than say 24 hours must be confirmed by a second admin. Of course that would be of only limited value, since it's easy enough for most admins to call a friend, but it would help a bit.

Nice in theory, but did you consider that, under with wikiway, all that would mean is that you now have two "connected" man-children butt-hurt if someone over turns it.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:20 am

Poetlister wrote: It would be nice to have a rule that every block more than say 24 hours must be confirmed by a second admin. Of course that would be of only limited value, since it's easy enough for most admins to call a friend, but it would help a bit.

Given that account creation is unlimited, that would be a very bad idea.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:21 am

Poetlister wrote:It would be nice to have a rule that every block more than say 24 hours must be confirmed by a second admin. Of course that would be of only limited value, since it's easy enough for most admins to call a friend, but it would help a bit.

All blocks other than for unambiguous username violations, spam, vandalism and sockpuppetry should be reported for community scrutiny on WP:AN or somewhere. That's about eight in every thousand blocks or eight per day by my calculation.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:26 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Poetlister wrote:It would be nice to have a rule that every block more than say 24 hours must be confirmed by a second admin. Of course that would be of only limited value, since it's easy enough for most admins to call a friend, but it would help a bit.
All blocks other than for unambiguous username violations, spam, vandalism and sockpuppetry should be reported for community scrutiny on WP:AN or somewhere. That's about eight in every thousand blocks or eight per day by my calculation.

And who is going to review the other 992 blocks each day to ensure that they really are for "unambiguous username violations, spam, vandalism" or "sockpuppetry"? Because admins never state a false reason for a block when they block someone. They just would never do that.

Wikipedia's internal governance is fundamentally corrupt. You won't reform it by nibbling at the edges.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:32 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Poetlister wrote:It would be nice to have a rule that every block more than say 24 hours must be confirmed by a second admin. Of course that would be of only limited value, since it's easy enough for most admins to call a friend, but it would help a bit.
All blocks other than for unambiguous username violations, spam, vandalism and sockpuppetry should be reported for community scrutiny on WP:AN or somewhere. That's about eight in every thousand blocks or eight per day by my calculation.
And who is going to review the other 992 blocks each day to ensure that they really are for "unambiguous username violations, spam, vandalism" or "sockpuppetry"? Because admins never state a false reason for a block when they block someone. They just would never do that.

Anyone who wants to, by checking here.

Kelly Martin wrote:Wikipedia's internal governance is fundamentally corrupt

Yes.

Kelly Martin wrote:You won't reform it by nibbling at the edges.

Did I say I would? Did I say this step alone would reform the governance at Wikipedia? If you approach an intractable problem with an all-or-nothing attitude, you get nothing.

Eight or so blocks a day require the exercise of some degree of refined social judgment. If an admin habitually mislabels such blocks as otherwise (e.g., calling a block for incivility a block for vandalism) they should lose the right to block due to incompetence - or lose adminship altogether due to deception.

everyking · Unread post by **everyking** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:50 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Poetlister wrote:It would be nice to have a rule that every block more than say 24 hours must be confirmed by a second admin. Of course that would be of only limited value, since it's easy enough for most admins to call a friend, but it would help a bit.
All blocks other than for unambiguous username violations, spam, vandalism and sockpuppetry should be reported for community scrutiny on WP:AN or somewhere. That's about eight in every thousand blocks or eight per day by my calculation.
And who is going to review the other 992 blocks each day to ensure that they really are for "unambiguous username violations, spam, vandalism" or "sockpuppetry"? Because admins never state a false reason for a block when they block someone. They just would never do that.
Anyone who wants to, by checking here.
Kelly Martin wrote:Wikipedia's internal governance is fundamentally corrupt
Yes.
Kelly Martin wrote:You won't reform it by nibbling at the edges.
Did I say I would? Did I say this step alone would reform the governance at Wikipedia? If you approach an intractable problem with an all-or-nothing attitude, you get nothing.

Eight or so blocks a day require the exercise of some degree of refined social judgment. If an admin habitually mislabels such blocks as otherwise (e.g., calling a block for incivility a block for vandalism) they should lose the right to block due to incompetence - or lose adminship altogether due to deception.

Thanks for doing the numbers. Eight per day seems like a rather manageable amount. It's a relatively small change, but it could prevent many bad blocks, thereby retaining contributors, reducing admin abuse, and helping to clean up the toxic atmosphere. Only a tiny fraction of blocks are bad, but that tiny fraction does a tremendous amount of damage over the long term.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:03 pm

everyking wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Poetlister wrote:It would be nice to have a rule that every block more than say 24 hours must be confirmed by a second admin. Of course that would be of only limited value, since it's easy enough for most admins to call a friend, but it would help a bit.
All blocks other than for unambiguous username violations, spam, vandalism and sockpuppetry should be reported for community scrutiny on WP:AN or somewhere. That's about eight in every thousand blocks or eight per day by my calculation.
And who is going to review the other 992 blocks each day to ensure that they really are for "unambiguous username violations, spam, vandalism" or "sockpuppetry"? Because admins never state a false reason for a block when they block someone. They just would never do that.
Anyone who wants to, by checking here.
Kelly Martin wrote:Wikipedia's internal governance is fundamentally corrupt
Yes.
Kelly Martin wrote:You won't reform it by nibbling at the edges.
Did I say I would? Did I say this step alone would reform the governance at Wikipedia? If you approach an intractable problem with an all-or-nothing attitude, you get nothing.

Eight or so blocks a day require the exercise of some degree of refined social judgment. If an admin habitually mislabels such blocks as otherwise (e.g., calling a block for incivility a block for vandalism) they should lose the right to block due to incompetence - or lose adminship altogether due to deception.
Thanks for doing the numbers. Eight per day seems like a rather manageable amount. It's a relatively small change, but it could prevent many bad blocks, thereby retaining contributors, reducing admin abuse, and helping to clean up the toxic atmosphere. Only a tiny fraction of blocks are bad, but that tiny fraction does a tremendous amount of damage over the long term.

It didn't thrill the admins when I mooted a similar proposal. The substantial complaints were (among a wall of ad hominems and "we're perfect; we don't need oversight" silliness) were that leaving a 2 line note at the administrators' noticeboard with a link to the locus of the problem would be onerous, and having to further explain the odd one would be a distraction from their important work.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:39 pm

Community conscience?

Thanks for the insight. Do you think the community needs a conscience? If so, what mechanism keeps or would keep the community just if it wasn't tolerance of dissenting opinions? And aren't all champions of just (or unjust, for that matter) causes throughout history self-appointed? Even politicians need to take self-initiative to get their views heard before they get elected. I don't mean to ask leading questions; I sincerely can't figure out a way to ensure justice without tolerance. ,Wil (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be us.
Happy to help.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:03 pm

thekohser wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
wllm wrote:So,
Used ironically I hope?.....
Now, now, using inside jokes on newcomers is hazing.
(Greg Kohs discovered while listening to videos of WMF speeches that many of their top people began their speeches and replies with "So..." It grated on his ears.)
Not just my ears.

It continues...

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:10 am

thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
wllm wrote:So,
Used ironically I hope?.....
Now, now, using inside jokes on newcomers is hazing.
(Greg Kohs discovered while listening to videos of WMF speeches that many of their top people began their speeches and replies with "So..." It grated on his ears.)
Not just my ears.
It continues...

The cited YouTube video is more grating because of excessive use of "And ahh".