Is it a bird, is it a plane? No, it's Superprotect

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:52 pm

Vigilant wrote: Speaking of browbeating the opposition.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73839.html

"If you're going to continue to say things that make Erik uncomfortable, then you won't get to say anything at all!"

This whole situation is becoming so strangely Orwellian so quickly that I begin to suspect we are in a Franz Kafka novel simulation inside a giant supercomputer.

F#%$&$#ing unbelievable.
(And I don´t swear every week...)
Odder was put on moderation, apparently for attacking Die Kaiser, (This post?)

I assume next it is silencing people like MZMcBride and Vandenberg. Even normally mild-mannered Todd Allen has just about had enough, it seems, link

Superprotection wasn't designed with vanishingly rare Office legal actions that are already quite adequately handled in mind, and I think all of us here know that. It's another attempt to force unwanted changes, because apparently "We'll desysop you for implementing your community's decisions when we won't!" wasn't quite ham-fisted enough.

This is pretty much the argument from the current arb.com case, too: WMF have taken a "legitimate" long-term policy, and twisted it into a self-serving policy.
Except now they have raise the stakes with "Superprotection".

Mr Barbour, and mr Greybeard: tell me, have you secretly recruited Mr. Möller to "Hasten the day"-camp? Then you better tell him he is really overdoing it...

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:22 pm

I wish I had enough political capital to spend to start an RFC on this question: Who is more disruptive, Eric or Erik?

RfB

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:42 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I wish I had enough political capital to spend to start an RFC on this question: Who is more disruptive, Eric or Erik?

RfB

Erik has enraged the writers of the largest Wikipedias (England and Germany) and just been blocked on German Wikipedia.

He is a liability to Wikipedia and the WMF because of his public quote(s?) on "consensual" pedophilia (theoretically, not as an avowed interested party) and collection of literature banned in the UK (but legal in Germany). Has he travelled to the UK lately? Somebody here suggested that UK customs should investigate his laptop if he attended Wikimania.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 11:47 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Mason wrote:John Vandenberg puts it well.

John Vandenberg wrote:We now have a hosting provider who feels they should decide how the projects should look and feel and operate and, worse, they have the right to deploy alpha quality software onto the projects to achieve that objective (and that is being generous for some of the software).
But of course, that RfC will achieve nothing. If consensus there is to request the removal of the 'superprotect' right, then someone will present that request to the WMF, and the WMF will say no, and that will be that.

There is one, and only one, way the community can put a stop to this nonsense.

An RfC on individual projects (English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Commons, etc.) proposing to place a statement protesting the way the WMF is treating the editing community at the top of every article, including the front page.

The WMF does not - theoretically - control content.

Commons, for all its faults, has the intestinal fortitude to do something like that. Perhaps German Wikipedia does as well.

I can think of literally nothing else any of the communities could do to force the WMF to change its approach to software deployment.
Don't be so melodramatic.

They could just leave.
Either silently or flipping the WMF the bird on the way out the door.

Get 100 admins on en.wp to say, "I am done here. Please remove my advanced permissions." and watch the fur fly.

Yup, if WP's admins would simply boycott the project for a few days, nonsense articles would multiply, vandalism would go unchallenged, and no one would close RfCs, RfAs, AfDs, etc. Unfortunately, they won't do it, no matter how mad they say they are.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:07 am

The Executive Director has deigned to weigh in on the shitstorm that her #2 has created in her absence, not saying anything much in the process (per usual):

Lila Tretikov wrote: On a Scale of Billions

All,

Our site, technology and content have far reaching impact and scale. Today, we do not fully appreciate ourselves as a top-5 website from an operational standpoint. This was surprising to me and I would like to bring clarity to what this means in practice for the benefit of the staff as well as the community. I would like to outline a number of operational principles to help us navigate towards this goal. These are not something we are inventing: these are widely used high-scale product practices; we will need to modify and adopt for our use. I look forward to discussing them with you all here.

These core operational principles are the following:

* Responsibility: As a global top-5 website relied on by millions around the world, we have responsibilities and obligations to the world at large with respect to basic stewardship of the technology and brands under our care. This means we are responsible to ensure access to knowledge for every person in the world who can access the internet, any time.

* Input: The needs of billions of users are rapidly evolving. Understanding these needs requires methodology different from what we know and use today. Our current methods are no longer sufficient. We have outgrown that scale, and we require broader, ongoing testing and validation as well as deeper understanding of our users: from viewers to expert editors. We plan to develop and use improved methods over time consistent with best practices in product development. Community discussions as well as staff expertise will always be important, but not sole, inputs in determining the definition of a product and its effectiveness.

* Scope: The WMF is ultimately responsible for the security, stability, consistency, and evolution of the Wikimedia sites and brands; fundraising to achieve global reach; and specific programs to accelerate the goals of our mission.

* Operational Controls and Process: Best practices require that software and operational changes receive appropriate validation and review prior to deployment. Separation of duties, code reviews, training and validation for technical permissions as well as an unambiguous process are required for that. As the organization responsible for the site and the servers, WMF must clarify all relevant practices.

* Accountability: As the Executive Director I am the person ultimately responsible for the direction and actions of the WMF. WMF makes all decisions as a team with my oversight, and we stand by these decisions together.

* Debate, disagreement, and civility: I encourage you to discuss, and debate, any decisions as you see appropriate, and you should feel free to bring issues to my attention. However, personal attacks are never OK on our projects, email lists, discussion pages, or other digital channels. Commentary on individuals is wrong and uncivil: we should demand better of ourselves. I would like to see all comments focus on constructive ideas and suggestions, policies, responsibilities, and, most importantly, desired outcomes.

We owe the world a clear strategy, policy, process, and prioritization of the work completed by the WMF. We are committed to establishing those in the open with clear expectations consistent with our mission so we can hold ourselves responsible for our failures and successes. This process must have multiple opportunities for community feedback. We realize that has not always been the case in the past, but this will be one of my top priorities as Executive Director. You should be seeing more on those in the upcoming weeks.

—LilaTretikov 21:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

At least she's starting to grasp that there is a difference between 500,000,000 readers and 10,000 volunteers. But she's talking like a capitalist, protecting her "brands" at her "top 5 website."

Ick. Gimme Sue Gardner's loopy figurehead semi-competence any day of the week over this...

link

RfB

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:48 am

In a response further down, her fear is explicit:

Lila Tretikov wrote: Our challenge is two fold: 1. we need to support many different types of users: editors that are very experienced, newbies that are currently leaving at a rate of 99+:1 because the experience is terrible, readers, searchers, embedded content, new forms of contributions... just to name a few, 2. we are already starting to loose global relevance, and that is a serious issue -- so speed is of the essence. How do we solve for those while the world is changing way faster than we are... ? LilaTretikov (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:48 am

...speed is of the essence...

o...k... So:

Problem: We are shitting it because we think that we are losing relevance and people have bad experiences when they come to the site.

Solution: Do something.

Appendix:
Randomly tossing in unfinished, broken, fluffy bits of software to address "problems" we think might exist, but haven't researched, is "something" - so we'll do that. (see note 1)
Pissing off and stomping on our established volunteer base if they are critical of, or fail to wholeheartedly accept the above is "something", so we'll do that.
Expanding our staff even more to add more low-value long job-title people with no clear mission or role is "something" - we'll do that too.

Notes:
1. This also helps us answer: "what the fuck do all those people you pay do, anyway?" questions, which we have historically struggled with.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:37 am

I had no idea Lila was a hasten the day type...

Hey Lila,
Do you think the abortion of a project that was the initial deployment of VisualEditor helped secure and retain newbie editors?

You are presiding over a ship of fools and I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the WMF board may have made a most lucky appointment in you ... for us.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:42 am

Good lord, Lila Tretikov, pablum spreader.

That page is a MarCom nightmare.

What the fuck are you doing, Lila?!

You are way, way, way in over your head here.

Wow.
I thought Wil Sinclair was vapid and pointless but you two are a matched pair.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:58 am

Zoloft wrote:In a response further down, her fear is explicit:
Lila Tretikov wrote: Our challenge is two fold: 1. we need to support many different types of users: editors that are very experienced, newbies that are currently leaving at a rate of 99+:1 because the experience is terrible, readers, searchers, embedded content, new forms of contributions... just to name a few, 2. we are already starting to loose global relevance, and that is a serious issue -- so speed is of the essence. How do we solve for those while the world is changing way faster than we are... ? LilaTretikov (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything untrue in what she is saying above. The problem is that she is asking the wrong people- Wikipedians. If Wikipedians were able and willing to solve those two problems, they already would have at least tried to do so.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:11 am

It keeps getting better!!!

Add another dinkleberry to the fire, mate

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73864.html

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:20 am

I'd assume she's just trying to get people to "focus on the big picture" to distract them from what the WMF is actually doing. AFAIK we actually don't know who came up with the idea for this "superprotect" feature - I suspect we all assume it was Erik's idea, and it definitely looks that way, but for all we know it could have been Lila herself, with Erik acting merely as an "agent."

She did write this though, a wee bit above the 5-point thing, which is right about on the edge of what she/they can still get away with:

Dear Hosse, in response to your suggestion, while we will not remove the software feature, we would be happy to immediately remove the protection of common.js on de.wp if there's agreement by admins that we will continue the conversation on the basis of the current state and improve it together, rather than disabling the feature. What do you think would be a reasonable way to establish that agreement? And yes, we're absolutely happy to continue the conversation on a page dedicated to this purpose. Thanks for the constructive suggestions! --LilaTretikov (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

...This, in response to what was basically a threat to fork the German Wikipedia - which, I might add, is a significantly more realistic possibility than a fork of the English Wikipedia. They want this feature disabled, no ifs-ands-or-buts, and the WMF's best hope (since they won't disable it) is to distract them and stall for time. The sense of entitlement is very strong on both sides, but if history is any guide, the distraction, stalling, and deflection tactics will probably win out in the end - a few WPers might quit over it, but it won't be a stampede, unless maybe they try to implement something even worse in the near term. (Which, I suppose, is not at all out of the question.)

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:50 am

Midsize Jake wrote: ...This, in response to what was basically a threat to fork the German Wikipedia - which, I might add, is a significantly more realistic possibility than a fork of the English Wikipedia. They want this feature disabled, no ifs-ands-or-buts, and the WMF's best hope (since they won't disable it) is to distract them and stall for time. The sense of entitlement is very strong on both sides, but if history is any guide, the distraction, stalling, and deflection tactics will probably win out in the end - a few WPers might quit over it, but it won't be a stampede, unless maybe they try to implement something even worse in the near term. (Which, I suppose, is not at all out of the question.)

F L O W I S C O M I N G

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:17 am

The WMF loses a board member during the MediaViewer/SuperProrection debacle.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73882.html

The timing is, surely, a coincidence.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:00 am

Lila Tretikov wrote: Our challenge is two fold: 1. we need to support many different types of users: editors that are very experienced, newbies that are currently leaving at a rate of 99+:1 because the experience is terrible, readers, searchers, embedded content, new forms of contributions... just to name a few, 2. we are already starting to loose global relevance, and that is a serious issue -- so speed is of the essence. How do we solve for those while the world is changing way faster than we are... ? LilaTretikov (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Barf.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:09 pm

Too long to quote
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_ta ... ont.27d.29

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:18 pm

Cla68 wrote:Yup, if WP's admins would simply boycott the project for a few days, nonsense articles would multiply, vandalism would go unchallenged, and no one would close RfCs, RfAs, AfDs, etc. Unfortunately, they won't do it, no matter how mad they say they are.

I doubt that it would do any good. Most vandalism is reverted by non-admin recent change and new page patrollers, and anyway nobody at the WMF really cares much about that sort of thing. On the contrary, they may even welcome it as a way to retain editors and up the participation rate.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:37 pm

I'm glad Erik Moeller implemented superprotect. The administrators push around common editors daily as if it were their birthright, now it's amusing to hear them howl and complain for pages and pages and pages on end because the WMF technical people said "actually, we need to be able to stop you from mucking with our code now and then." Oh, the horror!

It's truly hilarious some of these discussions. These primadonnas are acting as if their civil rights have been impinged on. Hey, try a March on Washington type thing you maroons! Stage a sitdown protest at 149 New Montgomery Street you boobs! LOL! LOL!

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:03 pm

Lila took many, many words to say it, but the message is clear: "we're in charge here, and you can love it or leave it."

Aside from putting up a banner on each page inviting people to join a discussion about whether to fork, the "communities" are powerless to do squat, and she knows it.

Poetlister wrote:Most vandalism is reverted by non-admin recent change and new page patrollers, and anyway nobody at the WMF really cares much about that sort of thing. On the contrary, they may even welcome it as a way to retain editors and up the participation rate.

Quite so. It is no secret that many people get lured into editing by seeing vandalism or an error and wanting to be a good citizen and fixing it; having an aggressive corps of vandalism patrollers damages the "honeypot" of random vandalism that can bring new editors into the fold, and scares away other new editors whose well-intended edits are often immediately reverted for being unsourced, poorly formatted, or some other violation of the various three-letter acronyms.

I don't know where the idea comes from that the WMF would mourn or fret over the loss of the "power users" who are most likely to leave over this, but all available evidence suggests otherwise.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:08 pm

Triptych wrote:I'm glad Erik Moeller implemented superprotect. The administrators push around common editors daily as if it were their birthright, now it's amusing to hear them howl and complain for pages and pages and pages on end because the WMF technical people said "actually, we need to be able to stop you from mucking with our code now and then." Oh, the horror!

It's truly hilarious some of these discussions. These primadonnas are acting as if their civil rights have been impinged on. Hey, try a March on Washington type thing you maroons! Stage a sitdown protest at 149 New Montgomery Street you boobs! LOL! LOL!

Indeed. But nobody would have expected you to see this in any context other than your "Admins is bad" mission.

Black, and white, are extremes. There exists grey.

We get it. "Bad adminz banned u and woz mean".

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:41 pm

Jim wrote:
Triptych wrote:I'm glad Erik Moeller implemented superprotect. The administrators push around common editors daily as if it were their birthright, now it's amusing to hear them howl and complain for pages and pages and pages on end because the WMF technical people said "actually, we need to be able to stop you from mucking with our code now and then." Oh, the horror!

It's truly hilarious some of these discussions. These primadonnas are acting as if their civil rights have been impinged on. Hey, try a March on Washington type thing you maroons! Stage a sitdown protest at 149 New Montgomery Street you boobs! LOL! LOL!
Indeed. But nobody would have expected you to see this in any context other than your "Admins is bad" mission.

Black, and white, are extremes. There exists grey.

We get it. "Bad adminz banned u and woz mean".

The context I see it is that of the wailing of a bunch of entitled babies that haven't been harmed at all. Oh thank you Swami for your wise comment that there is gray in the world. With regard to your last, I'd say there's an element to the motives of those that call out administrative abusers, an element that is beyond personal and selfish, and that is to try to stop them from abusing others.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:09 pm

Triptych wrote:
Jim wrote:
Triptych wrote:I'm glad Erik Moeller implemented superprotect. The administrators push around common editors daily as if it were their birthright, now it's amusing to hear them howl and complain for pages and pages and pages on end because the WMF technical people said "actually, we need to be able to stop you from mucking with our code now and then." Oh, the horror!

It's truly hilarious some of these discussions. These primadonnas are acting as if their civil rights have been impinged on. Hey, try a March on Washington type thing you maroons! Stage a sitdown protest at 149 New Montgomery Street you boobs! LOL! LOL!
Indeed. But nobody would have expected you to see this in any context other than your "Admins is bad" mission.

Black, and white, are extremes. There exists grey.

We get it. "Bad adminz banned u and woz mean".
The context I see it is that of the wailing of a bunch of entitled babies that haven't been harmed at all. Oh thank you Swami for your wise comment that there is gray in the world. With regard to your last, I'd say there's an element to the motives of those that call out administrative abusers, an element that is beyond personal and selfish, and that is to try to stop them from abusing others.

You forgot "the lulz"

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:22 pm

Triptych wrote:I'd say there's an element to the motives of those that call out administrative abusers, an element that is beyond personal and selfish, and that is to try to stop them from abusing others.

That element is love, with a dash of thoughtfulness.

You are, indeed, beyond personal and selfish. My error. Your selfless devotion is an inspiration.
Unlike those whiny pricks who just go on and on everywhere they can about the huge injustice of their own block, you campaign for the betterment of others.

It's awesome and I love you.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:49 pm

I was sarcastic first, so I guess I can't complain.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:40 pm

thekohser wrote:Apologies if this has already been reported, but Moeller's been blocked for a month on the German Wikipedia.

It's interesting to me that no one's undone it yet.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:06 pm

Mason wrote:
thekohser wrote:Apologies if this has already been reported, but Moeller's been blocked for a month on the German Wikipedia.
It's interesting to me that no one's undone it yet.

Well, it doesn't really matter to Erik, so there's no impetus for him, and the de.sysops aren't going to just back down.

It's one of those "nothing will really change either way" silent standoffs.

Kids in the playground not saying sorry. "You first" "No, You".

I can't really raise it much higher than that.

(Which speaks volumes, of course, for the people skills of the Deputy Direktor of a top something website...)

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:10 pm

Mason wrote: It's interesting to me that no one's undone it yet.

A WMF staffer will do as soon as they've implemented the "superadmin" privilege level to be applied to Erik's account, followed shortly thereafter by the "superblock" tool for making blocks that can't be reversed by normal admins.

I thought I was joking when I started typing this but now I'm not so sure.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:11 pm

Hex wrote:
Lila Tretikov wrote: Our challenge is two fold: 1. we need to support many different types of users: editors that are very experienced, newbies that are currently leaving at a rate of 99+:1 because the experience is terrible, readers, searchers, embedded content, new forms of contributions... just to name a few, 2. we are already starting to loose global relevance, and that is a serious issue -- so speed is of the essence. How do we solve for those while the world is changing way faster than we are... ? LilaTretikov (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Barf.

I can't speak for everyone but I think this is a pretty profound statement and is exactly true. Wikipedia is losing its global relevance in large part due to the abusive and toxic experience of editing. That toxic environment is in large part due to a minority of abusive admins and corrupt and abusive arbitraitors who haev completely lost touch with the community and care more about their particular POV and hooking up their pals than whats good for the project. Now, if the WMF can just pull their head out of their ass and realize that all the projects problems are not due to software, but due to the degrading culture on the site, then something might be able to be done about it.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:15 pm

Hex wrote:
Mason wrote: It's interesting to me that no one's undone it yet.
A WMF staffer will do as soon as they've implemented the "superadmin" privilege level to be applied to Erik's account, followed shortly thereafter by the "superblock" tool for making blocks that can't be reversed by normal admins.

I thought I was joking when I started typing this but now I'm not so sure.

What they need is "superunblockable", accounts that can't be blocked by normal admins.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:15 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Hex wrote:
Lila Tretikov wrote: Our challenge is two fold: 1. we need to support many different types of users: editors that are very experienced, newbies that are currently leaving at a rate of 99+:1 because the experience is terrible, readers, searchers, embedded content, new forms of contributions... just to name a few, 2. we are already starting to loose global relevance, and that is a serious issue -- so speed is of the essence. How do we solve for those while the world is changing way faster than we are... ? LilaTretikov (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Barf.
I can't speak for everyone but I think this is a pretty profound statement and is exactly true. Wikipedia is losing its global relevance in large part due to the abusive and toxic experience of editing. That toxic environment is in large part due to a minority of abusive admins and corrupt and abusive arbitraitors who haev completely lost touch with the community and care more about their particular POV and hooking up their pals than whats good for the project. Now, if the WMF can just pull their head out of their ass and realize that all the projects problems are not due to software, but due to the degrading culture on the site, then something might be able to be done about it.

I think it's vacuous and evasive, and tries to justify the doing of "something" because of the fear of "something else", whilst defining neither, other than by soundbites which may appeal to superficial observers.

But you're allowed to like it.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:20 pm

Jim wrote:
Triptych wrote:I'd say there's an element to the motives of those that call out administrative abusers, an element that is beyond personal and selfish, and that is to try to stop them from abusing others.
That element is love, with a dash of thoughtfulness.

You are, indeed, beyond personal and selfish. My error. Your selfless devotion is an inspiration.
Unlike those whiny pricks who just go on and on everywhere they can about the huge injustice of their own block, you campaign for the betterment of others.

It's awesome and I love you.

I resemble this remark... and I believe both of these apply to me.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:24 pm

Jim wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Hex wrote:
Lila Tretikov wrote: Our challenge is two fold: 1. we need to support many different types of users: editors that are very experienced, newbies that are currently leaving at a rate of 99+:1 because the experience is terrible, readers, searchers, embedded content, new forms of contributions... just to name a few, 2. we are already starting to loose global relevance, and that is a serious issue -- so speed is of the essence. How do we solve for those while the world is changing way faster than we are... ? LilaTretikov (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Barf.
I can't speak for everyone but I think this is a pretty profound statement and is exactly true. Wikipedia is losing its global relevance in large part due to the abusive and toxic experience of editing. That toxic environment is in large part due to a minority of abusive admins and corrupt and abusive arbitraitors who haev completely lost touch with the community and care more about their particular POV and hooking up their pals than whats good for the project. Now, if the WMF can just pull their head out of their ass and realize that all the projects problems are not due to software, but due to the degrading culture on the site, then something might be able to be done about it.
I think it's vacuous and evasive, and tries to justify the doing of "something" because of the fear of "something else", whilst defining neither, other than by soundbites which may appeal to superficial observers.

But you're allowed to like it.

I do think your right that there is some evasiveness in this response by Lila and it should be clear to everyone that I am not a fan of much of what the WMF does, but on the same note, she does have a point. The problem is, the WMF nor Lila it seems has the desire nor purpose to work to do anything to change the editing environment. They seem to have this idea that throwing money at the problem, hiring more people and releasing poorly developed software solutions will fix the problems, it will not.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:26 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Jim wrote:
Triptych wrote:I'd say there's an element to the motives of those that call out administrative abusers, an element that is beyond personal and selfish, and that is to try to stop them from abusing others.
That element is love, with a dash of thoughtfulness.

You are, indeed, beyond personal and selfish. My error. Your selfless devotion is an inspiration.
Unlike those whiny pricks who just go on and on everywhere they can about the huge injustice of their own block, you campaign for the betterment of others.

It's awesome and I love you.
I resemble this remark... and I believe both of these apply to me.

Heh... That's funny. I thought of you just then, in the context of that remark, while replying to your previous post.

No - you are open and genuine about what you do, and always have been. I think it's pointless, but I'd never seriously criticise you for it. You don't try to play games. It's all there on your sleeve. Entirely different.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:42 pm

Kumioko wrote: I can't speak for everyone but I think this is a pretty profound statement and is exactly true.

You missed that I was highlighting a phrase. The "barf" applied to the words in bold, exactly the kind of business jargon crud that the WMF's new leader should be striving to avoid.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:50 pm

Hex wrote:
Kumioko wrote: I can't speak for everyone but I think this is a pretty profound statement and is exactly true.
You missed that I was highlighting a phrase. The "barf" applied to the words in bold, exactly the kind of business jargon crud that the WMF's new leader should be striving to avoid.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:04 pm

Jim wrote:
Kumioko wrote: I resemble this remark... and I believe both of these apply to me. : banana: : deadhorse:
Heh... That's funny. I thought of you just then, in the context of that remark, while replying to your previous post.

No - you are open and genuine about what you do, and always have been. I think it's pointless, but I'd never seriously criticise you for it. You don't try to play games. It's all there on your sleeve. Entirely different.

Different from whom? Are you going at me? You want to call me other than open and genuine, and say that I'm a gameplayer, you better get more specific about it. It's the act of a little jerk to accuse indirectly.

My concern in general for the editors treated abysmally by administrators is well established here, by my commentary on Trongphu for example, and in a score of other discussions. Keep dumping on me for selfishness and petty grievance, and I'll start dumping back.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:09 pm

Triptych wrote: Are you going at me?

No. I'm not going anywhere. If it helps, I don't like your style - but hey, ho, we're all different. Not a big thing.

Don't throw "you'd better..." stuff at me though, please. That won't help, or get any response but this.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:16 pm

Jim wrote:
Triptych wrote: Are you going at me?
No. I'm not going anywhere. If it helps, I don't like your style - but hey, ho, we're all different. Not a big thing.

Don't throw "you'd better..." stuff at me though, please. That won't help, or get any response but this.

Then don't imply bull, fairly clearly directed at me.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:18 pm

Triptych wrote:
Jim wrote:
Triptych wrote: Are you going at me?
No. I'm not going anywhere. If it helps, I don't like your style - but hey, ho, we're all different. Not a big thing.

Don't throw "you'd better..." stuff at me though, please. That won't help, or get any response but this.
Then don't imply bull, fairly clearly directed at me.

Hmm...
"this"
then, I guess.

Seems pointless, but I promised.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:41 pm

Mason wrote:
Hex wrote: The "barf" applied to the words in bold, exactly the kind of business jargon crud that the WMF's new leader should be striving to avoid.

During Wikimania PD and I were watching a panel discussion about grants; I asked them, in their own language, how success in grant-funded projects was measured, which meant that I got to use the word "deliverables".

(The answer I got back from a young lady was that when using a WMF grant you basically get to set your own benchmarks, even though some times they're wrong and you have to change them, heh heh - here she looked meaningfully at one of her co-panellists.)

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:57 pm

Hex wrote:
Mason wrote:
Hex wrote: The "barf" applied to the words in bold, exactly the kind of business jargon crud that the WMF's new leader should be striving to avoid.

During Wikimania PD and I were watching a panel discussion about grants; I asked them, in their own language, how success in grant-funded projects was measured, which meant that I got to use the word "deliverables".

(The answer I got back from a young lady was that when using a WMF grant you basically get to set your own benchmarks, even though some times they're wrong and you have to change them, heh heh - here she looked meaningfully at one of her co-panellists.)

Deliverables is a fun word to say. Rolls right off the tongue. Very mellifluous.

Did anybody at Wikimania pronounce "processes" as "process-ease"? That shit grinds my gears.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:54 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Jim wrote:
Triptych wrote:I'd say there's an element to the motives of those that call out administrative abusers, an element that is beyond personal and selfish, and that is to try to stop them from abusing others.
That element is love, with a dash of thoughtfulness.

You are, indeed, beyond personal and selfish. My error. Your selfless devotion is an inspiration.
Unlike those whiny pricks who just go on and on everywhere they can about the huge injustice of their own block, you campaign for the betterment of others.

It's awesome and I love you.
I resemble this remark... and I believe both of these apply to me.

Notvelty does re-assessment.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:37 am

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73901.html

I'm really enjoying watching the WMF try to give "the community" a mahogany shampoo.

What the WMF is doing in defining "the community" as readers, editors, admins and the WMF is to water down the editors and admins part by claiming to speak for the great unwashed masses of readers who never actually logon to en.wp...

At the risk of helping the editors/admins, the readers don't give two wet shits about consensus, RfA/D/Cs, ARBCOM, etc.

The community is ONLY those who build the "encyclopedia" and the WMF is trying to play that group by diluting their importance like a 14th round of venture capital dilutes employee stock options.

Here's a fun mental exercise:
1) What would the WMF lose if half the editors quit?
2) What would the WMF lose if half the readers quit?

In the first case, your content stagnates and vandalism flourishes.

In the second case, you still have an "encyclopedia", it's just read a bit less than before. Why is/SHOULD this be a problem for a fucking CHARITY?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:45 am

Also, fuck y'all stupid peasants!

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73905.html

Unread post by **tarantino** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:47 am

There is an interesting discussion being carried on in German on Erik's meta talk page regarding superprotect and mediaviewer. Google translate doesn't fully translate whole pages that big though, so you have to paste in smaller sections.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:49 am

Vigilant wrote:Also, fuck y'all stupid peasants!

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73905.html

If the WMF goes under, Erik will have one hell of a hard time finding another job in software. There's so much evidence of his arrogant incompetence floating around online, his reputation is fried for years to come. Maybe decades.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:24 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Also, fuck y'all stupid peasants!

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73905.html
If the WMF goes under, Erik will have one hell of a hard time finding another job in software. There's so much evidence of his arrogant incompetence floating around online, his reputation is fried for years to come. Maybe decades.

Nah he can always just go over to Wikia..lol

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:58 am

Looking at Lila's talk page, I feel a little sorry for her. Perhaps I am wrong, but there seem to be signs of culture shock.

Ah, by no means do I have all the answers, but I have a lot of questions. All I know is the only "cardinal sin" in product design is indifference towards users -- I hope we agree there We need to agree on how, thought. Because we have so many, and so different... -- [[User:LilaTretikov|LilaTretikov]] ([[User talk:LilaTretikov#top|talk]]) 00:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything that could have prepared her for this. If I were in her shoes, and had had the sort of two months she's had in my first two months of a new job, I'd be beginning to wonder whether I'd made a dreadful mistake.

She needs to get her product development department sorted out, pronto.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 3:53 am

The key to this situation resolving favorably is to get WMF to stop thinking of the world as a dichotomy between WMF employees and "Users" (some of whom are picky and annoyingly demanding "Power Users") and to start seeing the world as a partnership between WMF employees and the 10,000 or so active "Volunteers" across the projects on the one hand, and the multi-million mass of "Readers" on the other.

Once that notion takes hold, then hopefully and presumably they will start asking questions of the Volunteer community before they decide what they are going to do instead of after, and will conceptualize their changes as "for the readers" (MediaViewer) or "for the volunteers" (Flow) and make damned sure they get it right before they install it.

This whole MediaViewer fiasco is small potatoes compared to what Flow is potentially going to be. It's good to fight this battle now, when the stakes are lower. Of course WMF wins this one — they clearly were going to from the start. It's a question of whether the Volunteer community takes a "Good Loss" or a "Bad Loss" in the process, to borrow a concept from the sporting world.

A "good loss" and Flow's damage can be ameliorated. A "bad loss" and it's gonna get ugly...

RfB

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:35 am

Vigilant wrote:Also, fuck y'all stupid peasants!

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73905.html

WMF is saying it now, and people perceive that (understandably) as a power grab. Fair enough - it is the explicit extension of existing authority into a novel domain. Such a change is always contentious and controversial, but I don't think it was avoidable.

Funny this; Möller is here admitting it is a power grab. But thereby he essentially undermine his own -and others- argument that the VE is "essential" to the project. No, it is not essential: it is a vehicle to give more power to WMF.

Vigilant wrote:Here's a fun mental exercise:
1) What would the WMF lose if half the editors quit?
2) What would the WMF lose if half the readers quit?

In the first case, your content stagnates and vandalism flourishes.

In the second case, you still have an "encyclopedia", it's just read a bit less than before. Why is/SHOULD this be a problem for a fucking CHARITY?

I think the one "community" the WMF cares about is ....."The donor community", or "the $$$ community"
Actually: I think it is much more likely to find donors in the "reader" "never edit, never log-in" community, than among long-time editors/admins.
Fair enough.

However; what Lila should look at is what this "donor community" or "never edit, never log-in" community care about.

When did we last hear anyone complain about the user-interface? Like *ever*?
While we hear complaints about unreliable content on Wikipedia a zillion times every single day. And to fix that, WMF should

to every single content-provider and editor on WP.

Instead they "fix" that which nobody has complained about.
Short-term: it makes sense: it justifies their own pay checks.
Long-term: it is a death sentence.