Media Viewer - A new hope

We examine the less than successful stories of the Wikimedia Foundation to create and use technology. The poster boy for this forum is Visual Editor.
User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:07 pm

mac wrote:
thekohser wrote:
mac wrote:With all due respect to Zoloft and to Lilburne, I nominate Vigilant.
I'll see your Vigilant nomination, and raise you one Wil Sinclair, who has been running Mediawiki for some time now on his site.
Hasten the day.
The Lilburne/Russavia/Vigilant/Puddinghead coalition voter.
Weekly cage matches to determine how that particular vote will go.

Perhaps Lilburne and I can form a tag team and go all WWF on Scott and Wil.
I'd still need my luchador mask though.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:10 pm

Mason wrote:Oh, SNAP
Newyorkbrad wrote:I don't enjoy wiki-legalism for its own sake (I am unlikely to discuss "jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction" in any document I'm not being paid to write, and bizarre overemphasis on process belongs Offwiki)
Oh shit!

That's gonna leave a mark.

Image
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Hex » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:11 pm

Mason wrote:Oh, SNAP
Newyorkbrad wrote:I don't enjoy wiki-legalism for its own sake (I am unlikely to discuss "jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction" in any document I'm not being paid to write, and bizarre overemphasis on process belongs Offwiki)
I'm not NYB's biggest fan by a long shot, but you've got to admit that he has a knack for the zingers sometimes.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:30 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
I generally agree with Seraphimblade's discussion in his statement. I think we always have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction, including whether Eloquence's actions fall within one of the exceptions to our jurisdiction, and whether we may nonetheless take notice of it in light of the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. Thinking about this some more. T. Canens (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone else parse that?
It's Canens trying to prove he's a lawgeek by spewing out one of the most basic rules of conflicts law: a court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. He is talking to hear himself talk, so he can subsequently pat himself on the back about how intelligent and knowledgeable he obviously is.

Remember, the ArbCom is one of the places people who want to be judges, but can't hack the process for actually becoming a judge, go to play at being a judge.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:45 pm

Well, just to spare folks the trouble of looking it up, the page he's referring to says this (emphasis mine):
The Committee has jurisdiction within the English Wikipedia.

The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff; (ii) Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia; or (iii) conduct outside the English Wikipedia.

The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors.
So basically, that's saying that the Arbcom is allowed to complain about abusive actions by WMF staff all they want, but there's nothing they can actually do about them. However, in practical terms, there may be situations where a WP user might do something to undermine an abusive action (or whatever) made by a WMF staffer, and the committee could say (within their purview) that that because the WMF action was abusive, the user should not be sanctioned.

And yes, Mr. Canens is saying that mostly just to hear himself talk, or whatever the textual equivalent of that sort of behavior is.

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Hex » Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:31 pm

Hasteur made a good point here:
Hasteur wrote: The foundation may regard that the foundation makes the final call about stylesheets and Javascript, however if that is the case then they should be 100% edit protected from being edited from within the wiki. That these pages are editable suggests that the foundation is giving the pages back to the community to have a more collaberative environment and should only use the "My Servers" argument when the change seriously affects the servers. Hasteur (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
As long as the core components of the site are modifiable by persons outside the WMF, the WMF can't claim absolute authority over them. Any such claim can be disproven by the collective actions of a sufficient number of editors if the will is there. In such a situation, the WMF's options are either play Whac-A-Mole with admin tools against waves of "suicide attacks" by determined editors, which is a ridiculous notion, or Lock Everything (a meatball:MilitaryCoup). They could do that now; I think in their heart of hearts they want to, but they don't have the guts for it.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Poetlister » Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:43 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:So basically, that's saying that the Arbcom is allowed to complain about abusive actions by WMF staff all they want, but there's nothing they can actually do about them. However, in practical terms, there may be situations where a WP user might do something to undermine an abusive action (or whatever) made by a WMF staffer, and the committee could say (within their purview) that that because the WMF action was abusive, the user should not be sanctioned.
Arbcom collectively can say anything it likes. But if a WMF staff member desysops someone, what will Arbcom do? Get a bureaucrat to resysop? That would be interesting.

Edit: Fix typo.
Last edited by Poetlister on Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:47 pm

Hex wrote:Hasteur made a good point here:
Hasteur wrote: The foundation may regard that the foundation makes the final call about stylesheets and Javascript, however if that is the case then they should be 100% edit protected from being edited from within the wiki. That these pages are editable suggests that the foundation is giving the pages back to the community to have a more collaberative environment and should only use the "My Servers" argument when the change seriously affects the servers. Hasteur (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
As long as the core components of the site are modifiable by persons outside the WMF, the WMF can't claim absolute authority over them. Any such claim can be disproven by the collective actions of a sufficient number of editors if the will is there. In such a situation, the WMF's options are either play Whac-A-Mole with admin tools against waves of "suicide attacks" by determined editors, which is a ridiculous notion, or Lock Everything (a meatball:MilitaryCoup). They could do that now; I think in their heart of hearts they want to, but they don't have the guts for it.
They obviously don't control the javascript as if it were on the WMF servers.
It's a blatant attempt to expand their control to head off the next VisceralEditor rebellion debacle.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:51 pm

Poetlister wrote:But if a WMF staff member desysops someone, what will Arbcom do? Get a bureaucrat to resysop? That would be interesting.
Sure, it would be interesting, but it's never going to happen - the policy exists for the Arbcom's benefit, not the WMF staff's benefit, and not for the benefit of WP users in general. If a WMF staffer were to "desysop" someone, all the Arbcom could do is protest - to actually reverse the action themselves would be a violation of that very policy. The policy is there so that when the vast wave of WPers rise up in righteous anger over the WMF's "interference" in their "internal affairs," the Arbcom members can all post a handy link to that section of that page and say their hands are tied.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:25 pm

@Eloquence: I just had a look at your user rights, and so far as I can see you do not actually have the technical ability to desysop a admin. It is part of the 'crat toolset. I am left wondering how, if you had been reverted again and had felt obligated to live up to your assertion that you would desysop, you would have actually gone about doing so? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:28 pm

Hey en.wp...
'Sup?

I know a lot of you really hate me and ... that's OK. I hate a bunch of you guys too.
However, I think I've found a way forward for all of us.

Hear me out.


You've got a once in a lifetime situation here and I'd like to make you an honest deal.
In response to @Rich Farmbrough:'s concern, perhaps this motion should state that Foundation employees may only act with extraordinary privileges when executing WP:OFFICE actions, & if found to be abusing those rights may be sanctioned by any Admin up to & including banning. (In any case, Foundation employees definitely do not enjoy the privileges of Wikipedia: ignore all rules: they are expected to know how Wikipedia works & not need to cut red tape to achieve results.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
If you community and/or ARBCOM ban Erik Mo:eller, I promise to leave wikipediocracy for as long as he is banned.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience.

Your friend,
Vigilant
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:30 pm

Does Risker take stupid pills?
Also noting: It is standard practice to warn users when they are doing something harmful, and tell them what the reasonably anticipated outcome will be if they continue. We give warnings all the time. The only way to prevent an admin from repeatedly adding broken code to the site .js is to desysop; thus Eloquence's warning, while harsh, is the correct warning under the circumstances, and successfully prevented an edit war. Risker (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
:boggle:
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

NativeForeigner
Contributor
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:28 pm
Wikipedia User: NativeForeigner
Wikipedia Review Member: NativeForeigner

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by NativeForeigner » Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:56 am

Still undecided on whether or not to take this case. I'll ask the same question here I did on wiki (and I'd encourage you to answer it on wiki, but if you respond here no problemo)

Reading comments from the community there is a general feeling that what Erik Moeller did was not ideal (or productive), and that the foundation has a history of not responding very well, especially in technical areas. Sure, some people have disagreed with this assessment, but for the purposes of this argument, I'll assume that this is consensus.

If we assume what Erik did was poor, and the WMF did not interact well in this particular case/set of cases, what do you want the committee to do here that is productive, and not the 'rhetoric without action' which the committee is (oftentimes justly) lampooned for enacting.

User avatar
SB_Johnny
Habitué
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by SB_Johnny » Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:31 am

NativeForeigner wrote:Still undecided on whether or not to take this case. I'll ask the same question here I did on wiki (and I'd encourage you to answer it on wiki, but if you respond here no problemo)

Reading comments from the community there is a general feeling that what Erik Moeller did was not ideal (or productive), and that the foundation has a history of not responding very well, especially in technical areas. Sure, some people have disagreed with this assessment, but for the purposes of this argument, I'll assume that this is consensus.

If we assume what Erik did was poor, and the WMF did not interact well in this particular case/set of cases, what do you want the committee to do here that is productive, and not the 'rhetoric without action' which the committee is (oftentimes justly) lampooned for enacting.
The WMF has historically been very hands off when it comes to how the individual "projects" configure their software and their policies, except for a few extensions that would overload the servers (and/or are untrusted), and legal issues when it comes to the policies.

The rather massive fundraising has allowed them to hire a fairly large staff for the tech department, which in theory should be able to do what the volunteer coders used to do but faster, namely improve the underlying software to allow better and more flexible presentation of the end product (the articles).

Unfortunately the attitude of the hired hands is that they see themselves as the masters of the house, with the contributors being only somewhat welcome guests, because they see the wiki itself (which they create) as the product, rather than seeing the encyclopedia (which the contributors create) as the product. IOW, they've got it back-assward.
This is not a signature.

NativeForeigner
Contributor
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:28 pm
Wikipedia User: NativeForeigner
Wikipedia Review Member: NativeForeigner

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by NativeForeigner » Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:40 am

SB_Johnny wrote:
NativeForeigner wrote:Still undecided on whether or not to take this case. I'll ask the same question here I did on wiki (and I'd encourage you to answer it on wiki, but if you respond here no problemo)

Reading comments from the community there is a general feeling that what Erik Moeller did was not ideal (or productive), and that the foundation has a history of not responding very well, especially in technical areas. Sure, some people have disagreed with this assessment, but for the purposes of this argument, I'll assume that this is consensus.

If we assume what Erik did was poor, and the WMF did not interact well in this particular case/set of cases, what do you want the committee to do here that is productive, and not the 'rhetoric without action' which the committee is (oftentimes justly) lampooned for enacting.
The WMF has historically been very hands off when it comes to how the individual "projects" configure their software and their policies, except for a few extensions that would overload the servers (and/or are untrusted), and legal issues when it comes to the policies.

The rather massive fundraising has allowed them to hire a fairly large staff for the tech department, which in theory should be able to do what the volunteer coders used to do but faster, namely improve the underlying software to allow better and more flexible presentation of the end product (the articles).

Unfortunately the attitude of the hired hands is that they see themselves as the masters of the house, with the contributors being only somewhat welcome guests, because they see the wiki itself (which they create) as the product, rather than seeing the encyclopedia (which the contributors create) as the product. IOW, they've got it back-assward.
That doesn't really answer my question. Even if the foundation has got it all wrong, what can Arbcom do in this specific case to help?

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Zoloft » Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:46 am

If I were sitting as an arb, I would consider these remedies:
  • A strong rebuke of Eloquence (T-C-L) for threatening a volunteer with desysop.
  • A topic-ban for the user from discussions of WMF software involving the community, broadly interpreted.
  • The issuance of an open call to the WMF leadership to form a technical review board for all new software, with heavy representation by veteran editors.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:50 am

NativeForeigner wrote:That doesn't really answer my question. Even if the foundation has got it all wrong, what can Arbcom do in this specific case to help?
Establish itself as having the authority to negotiate with the Foundation and make the relationship between the project and the Foundation more of a two-way street. As it stands now the Foundation does whatever it damn well wants and the projects can just take it up the ass.

If the Committee is unwilling to take this role (and, given its historic unwillingness to govern despite being the only authority on the English Wikipedia with any claim to legitimacy in that regard at all, it's fairly likely it will), at least initiate the process of electing or otherwise establishing a committee with the authority to negotiate with the Foundation.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:21 am

Hex wrote:
Mason wrote:Oh, SNAP
Newyorkbrad wrote:I don't enjoy wiki-legalism for its own sake (I am unlikely to discuss "jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction" in any document I'm not being paid to write, and bizarre overemphasis on process belongs Offwiki)
I'm not NYB's biggest fan by a long shot, but you've got to admit that he has a knack for the zingers sometimes.
I think it would be fun to have a couple glasses of scotch and a cigar with him. Get him a little bit tight and let him tell some WP stories, off the record...

(All NY lawyers smoke cigars and drink scotch, don't they?)

RfB

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:22 am

Zoloft wrote:If I were sitting as an arb, I would consider these remedies:
  • A strong rebuke of Eloquence (T-C-L) for threatening a volunteer with desysop.
  • A topic-ban for the user from discussions of WMF software involving the community, broadly interpreted.
  • The issuance of an open call to the WMF leadership to form a technical review board for all new software, with heavy representation by veteran editors.

I would be looking to pull Eloquence's tools and force him to go around with a new WMF account. That would send a message.

tim

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:18 am

Randy from Boise wrote:I would be looking to pull Eloquence's tools and force him to go around with a new WMF account...
Naah, that was Fæ's idea. They'd never go for that - it would give Fæ a "win."

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Zoloft » Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:41 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I would be looking to pull Eloquence's tools and force him to go around with a new WMF account...
Naah, that was Fæ's idea. They'd never go for that - it would give Fæ a "win."
We could root for a Fæ win... :innocent:

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:51 am

Zoloft wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I would be looking to pull Eloquence's tools and force him to go around with a new WMF account...
Naah, that was Fæ's idea. They'd never go for that - it would give Fæ a "win."
We could root for a Fæ win... :innocent:
When he's not being a drama queen, he has some good ideas.
There. I said it.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:10 am

Triple-bind thinking...? :unsure:

OK, we're saying we want Erik to be forced to rename this account to "Erik Möller (WMF)," and then have to use that to do his WMF dirty-work on Wikipedia, and in order to overcome the fact that it was Fæ's idea (which would normally cause them to dismiss it out-of-hand), we're going to say "this is the best idea Fæ has ever had EVER!" and then because we like it, they're going to assume it's all a trick, by us, to make them not do it (because normally they would never do anything we wanted them to do), and since they can't stand the idea of being tricked this will ultimately cause them to do it, despite Fæ having suggested it...?

Actually, I think that might even be quadruple- bind thinking.

Very impressive!

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by HRIP7 » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:30 am

Zoloft wrote:If I were sitting as an arb, I would consider these remedies:
  • A strong rebuke of Eloquence (T-C-L) for threatening a volunteer with desysop.
  • A topic-ban for the user from discussions of WMF software involving the community, broadly interpreted.
  • The issuance of an open call to the WMF leadership to form a technical review board for all new software, with heavy representation by veteran editors.
These are some pretty decent suggestions. YMMV.

SB_Johnny's point above was well-taken as well: somehow, even though the WMF gets all the money, they have to be made to remember that it's the volunteers that build the value people donate for.

And remember: the project is losing volunteers. It's not losing readers and donors to date. So treat the volunteers nicely, and give them a seat at the bargaining table.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by HRIP7 » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:32 am

Vigilant wrote:When he's not being a drama queen, he has some good ideas.
There. I said it.
And well done for saying it. :)

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:35 am

If you wanted to make a point about this, you could get all like minded volunteers who voted for opt-in as the default to take a 90 day vacation from editing. Have them talk to all their friends too. Make sure to mention on en.wp that it's because of Erik's ham-handed tactics.

The ones that commented at the RfC are the ones that found it, cared enough to sign it and then cared enough to fight for it.
These are the ones who make the vast bulk of the useful edits.

Watch the content edits/hour mark drop like a rock.
Notice that all that's left are gnome/bot edits.

With any luck, they'll all find new hobbies during those 90 days.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:05 am

Vigilant wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:I would be looking to pull Eloquence's tools and force him to go around with a new WMF account...
Naah, that was Fæ's idea. They'd never go for that - it would give Fæ a "win."
We could root for a Fæ win... :innocent:
When he's not being a drama queen, he has some good ideas.
There. I said it.
Homophobe!!!

RfB

User avatar
SB_Johnny
Habitué
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by SB_Johnny » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:10 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Zoloft wrote:If I were sitting as an arb, I would consider these remedies:
  • A strong rebuke of Eloquence (T-C-L) for threatening a volunteer with desysop.
  • A topic-ban for the user from discussions of WMF software involving the community, broadly interpreted.
  • The issuance of an open call to the WMF leadership to form a technical review board for all new software, with heavy representation by veteran editors.
I would be looking to pull Eloquence's tools and force him to go around with a new WMF account. That would send a message.
I'd go further and make it clear that WMF staffers who poison the atmosphere and/or threaten to use their tools or pull to override a consensus be desysopped and/or banned. Again, they're supposed to serve the volunteers, not the other way around.
This is not a signature.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Poetlister » Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:35 am

Vigilant wrote:
@Eloquence: I just had a look at your user rights, and so far as I can see you do not actually have the technical ability to desysop a admin. It is part of the 'crat toolset. I am left wondering how, if you had been reverted again and had felt obligated to live up to your assertion that you would desysop, you would have actually gone about doing so? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting
Silly. He could get someone who does have the powers to do it, or possibly even get a developer to do it by some back door method.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Zoloft » Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:01 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
@Eloquence: I just had a look at your user rights, and so far as I can see you do not actually have the technical ability to desysop a admin. It is part of the 'crat toolset. I am left wondering how, if you had been reverted again and had felt obligated to live up to your assertion that you would desysop, you would have actually gone about doing so? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting
Silly. He could get someone who does have the powers to do it, or possibly even get a developer to do it by some back door method.
Ask Nixon how that worked out for his administration. Saturday Night Massacre (T-H-L)
Bork, Bork, Bork!

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:08 pm

It has been brought to my attention off list that ArbCom might not even need to go through a formal process to detool Eloquence, since it seems he has never passed an RFA vote to begin with!!!

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /Eloquence

which explains his status as an administrator with two links: (1) link and (2) link

Eloquence's status should have been changed back to regular editor over a decade ago!

If he wants to be a regular administrator on English Wikipedia, he should run the RFA gauntlet like everyone else...

RfB

User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:19 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:It has been brought to my attention off list that ArbCom might not even need to go through a formal process to detool Eloquence, since it seems he has never passed an RFA vote to begin with!!!

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /Eloquence

which explains his status as an administrator with two links: (1) link and (2) link

Eloquence's status should have been changed back to regular editor over a decade ago!

If he wants to be a regular administrator on English Wikipedia, he should run the RFA gauntlet like everyone else...

RfB
Hahahahahahahaaa, what are Eric's chances of making it through RFA?
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by HRIP7 » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:55 pm

According to Wikipedia's Guide to Arbitration,
A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes (that is, four more “accept” than “decline” votes) or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;

2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and

3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.
The arbitration case request reached the required net four in support of a case a couple of days ago (it currently stands at 5 Accepts vs. 1 Decline). Unless something exceptional happens, there will indeed be an arbitration case to settle this matter.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:26 pm

To all the ARBCOM members:

If you refuse to accept this case, you are tacitly cementing the WMF engineering team's utter supremacy over en.wp and all other wikis ... forever.

Do the people who write the content on the wikis have literally zero control over the environment they work in?
Really?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:05 pm

Truly disingenuous.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... rification
Hello Gwillhickers and Steinsplitter, thanks for your request for clarifications. I am sorry for not responding sooner, but we have been busy exploring possible solutions to your concerns, which we would like to discuss in coming days. In the meantime, here are some quick responses to your questions and comments above.

1. "Casual users ... are uninformed and ... simply don't care about these matters"
Your statement that casual users are 'uninformed' and 'don't care about these matters' is contradicted by the 15,000 survey responses collected here: our readers are a lot smarter than you imply, and they do care deeply about their experience. In fact, they contributed a lot more actionable suggestions for improving Media Viewer than we've found on RfCs, which tend to be more political. We think it is important that all user groups be included in the decision-making process for major features that impact them, not just small groups of power users on RfCs like this one. We serve over 500 million users, most of whom are 'casual users', and we believe their voice should be heard loud and clear when considering decisions that affect their experience as much as this tool does.

2. "Why will (you) continue to make MV a default for logged-in editors?"
We've observed that offering different user experiences for editors and readers can be confusing. For example, if an editor is trying to help a reader, they might give them the wrong instructions, not realizing that the reader is not seeing the same thing as they are. Bawolff has also made a reasonable case against this idea in this thread. That said, we are considering all options to find a practical solution to this issue. Some have recommended disabling Media Viewer by default for auto-confirmed editors on Commons, and we are reviewing this idea as one possible option, among others.

3. "Why did you not reveal your opinion about the RfC process?"
It's good practice to avoid forming an opinion on important matters like these until we have all the facts: so we could not reach a conclusion on the merits of the English RfC until we heard the arguments and the closing 'administrator' recommendations -- as well as counted the number of votes. Note that the decision to keep Media Viewer enabled was reached by our entire team, in consultation with our colleagues from other teams, so I am representing them when I write up our recommendations. This is why I avoid participating actively as an individual in RfCs like these, to avoid confusing people, who may not be sure if I am speaking for myself or for the team which I represent.

4. "A fair number of non-logged-in readers left comments here"
You are correct that some anonymous users left comments on RfC pages, and we appreciate their contributions. However, usability studies have shown repeatedly that typical readers are uncomfortable posting on talk pages like this one, because the editing tools are hard to use and they fear hostile confrontations, which seem to be the norm in this community. So we don't believe that RfCs like these are the appropriate channel for collecting representative reader feedback.

5. "Readers and editors alike on English Wikipedia did not find MV useful, according to your own statistics"
You are referring to June 20 statistics, which were taken a couple weeks after launch. In the last two weeks from June 20 to July 8, more English users found Media Viewer useful (49%) than not (40%), based on 1,779 responses for that period, as shown in this dashboard. These findings suggest that users found Media Viewer more useful over time, as they became more familiar with the tool, and as new features were developed based on user feedback.

6. "If you cannot make 'any' concessions for English Wikipedia ... a full review of this whole affair (should) be initiated."
We are prepared to engage in good faith, civil discussions to find a mutually acceptable resolution to this issue. For example, we are considering providing a more prominent viewing options panel that would make it very easy to switch quickly to your preferred viewing mode. Right after launch of this feature, all users would be shown this prominent panel and asked to select their favorite viewing option. This would generate more accurate data about user preferences than either this RfC or our optional surveys. Once we have that data, we can all make more informed decisions about our next steps, based on actual responses from all users, rather than speculation. Would you be open to discussing this idea with us?

I hope this is helpful. Going forward, I would encourage you to assume good faith on our part -- and resist the temptation to demonize everyone at WMF. We are not evil, we are regular folks like you, who are just as committed to the success of our movement as you are. We are working hard to find practical solutions to address community concerns, diligently and honestly. We have already reached out to thousands of users and made substantial improvements based on their feedback. You can count on us to keep working with users to modernize our software, so we can all attract more contributors to our cause. Thanks for your understanding. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:08 pm

Pete Forsyth makes some good points.
Statement by Peteforsyth

Please consider the Wikimedia Foundation's understanding of the values and processes that drive Wikipedia, and WMF's ability to engage respectfully and effectively with those processes; to promote harmony over drama; and to promote mutual understanding and shared purpose among stakeholder groups. My position: WMF has lost touch with the values and processes that have driven Wikipedia's growth. WMF has tended toward divisive actions. This damages our shared strategic goals: it drives down productive participation, damages our ability to improve quality, damages our ability to convert readers (reach) into contributors.

Background reading: Sue Gardner's "Narrowing Focus" memo (2012).

English Wikipedians agreed to require "autoconfirmed" status for article creation. WMF developers overruled that consensus. (2011)
WMF deployed the Visual Editor; English Wikipedia community determined it wasn't ready yet. WMF respected this consensus. However, from June-September 2012 there was confusion. Disrupting new and experienced English Wikipedians' workflow for months wasn't good. (2012)
WMF created "Article Feedback Tool". English Wikipedia RFC removed the tool. (2013)
WMF upgraded Wikipedia's notification system ("Echo"), but deployed it sloppily. Wikipedians determined it should be disabled (temporarily). WMF staff overrode consensus, without asserting they were doing so. (2013)
WMF staff proposed hosting non-free video formats. Proposal was strongly rejected. A better understanding of the values driving Wikimedians might have avoided a divisive public debate. (2013)
On the Media Viewer RFC, two points:
WMF staff participated in RFC, but in spite of being asked how they would respond to the RFC on June 16, chose to wait until a day after the RFC's July 9 closure to comment on its legitimacy. This approach disrespects a community that considers RFCs meaningful and binding.
WMF was roundabout in its decision. WMF announced a "recommendation", but clarified it was a decision only upon my (erroneous) Javascript change. Absent bold volunteer action, we might never have known WMF had made a decision. A "pocket veto" (similar to the Autoconfirmed and Echo incidents noted above) is unbecoming of an organization committed to transparency.

WMF makes bad predictions. There's no easy fix for this; better hiring and training might have an impact. A better understanding of values and processes cannot be legislated into existence by ArbCom. But formal recognition of the problem is a vital ingredient for a solution.

Erik's threat toward me was insignificant as an isolated incident, and doesn't demand strong reaction. But over the years, senior WMF personnel have shown poor understanding of our values and processes, sometimes acting with hostility. This has stoked unneeded drama. This pattern invites reflection on how Wikipedians should engage with WMF staff. Two general points (not about the present case):

If/when staff abuse community-granted tools, tools should be removed -- even if there's no immediate practical difference. (Precedent exists.) Staff, and staff accounts, come and go.
ArbCom should admonish staff who misuse staff accounts, even if it carries no actionable consequence. WMF should be accountable to Wikimedia communities; a clear statement when a line is crossed is helpful in itself.

-Pete 14 July 2014/edited 15 July
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
The Adversary
Habitué
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 am
Location: Troll country

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by The Adversary » Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:18 pm

WMF is filled with old Wikipedians, but it is Wikipedians of a certain type; namely the "policy and dramah"-guys. Very few content -builders have ended up in WMF, AFAIK.

Typically Coren, with less than 10% contributions to main. A good content contributor have more edits to the actual content in 3 months than Coren has had total in his 11 years.

So of course he does not value content contributors. He interpret Lila`s "We work for the users" as "We work for ..the readers!" Readers are, after all, much less likely to ask pesky questions to WMFers, not to mention dragging WMFers in front of arb.com.

Hey, Coren, didn´t anyone tell you?
Wikipedia is losing contributors.....not readers...

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by EricBarbour » Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:42 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:As it stands now the Foundation does whatever it damn well wants and the projects can just take it up the ass.

If the Committee is unwilling to take this role (and, given its historic unwillingness to govern despite being the only authority on the English Wikipedia with any claim to legitimacy in that regard at all, it's fairly likely it will), at least initiate the process of electing or otherwise establishing a committee with the authority to negotiate with the Foundation.
That would be most extremely well-deserved. Just remember, the WMF controls the servers and all the root accounts thereon, while the petty little Arbcom has nothing but their stupid little Arbcom caps, which they put on their pointed little heads when they want to feel a teensy jolt of power.

If he wished, Moeller could probably ban ALL of the arbitrators for life, dissolve Arbcom, and install his own chosen people in charge of content disputes. That would be truly comical. So much for the precious "community".
Typically Coren, with less than 10% contributions to main. A good content contributor have more edits to the actual content in 3 months than Coren has had total in his 11 years.
I keep hoping someone punches Coren in the mouth, but it never happens. Wikipedia's internal "system" is a vast lake of bullshit.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Poetlister » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:40 pm

EricBarbour wrote:If he wished, Moeller could probably ban ALL of the arbitrators for life, dissolve Arbcom, and install his own chosen people in charge of content disputes. That would be truly comical. So much for the precious "community".
I really doubt that. At the end of the day that's Jimbo's prerogative and he might just be stirred into action if someone else tried it.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:40 pm

Vigilant wrote:Pete Forsyth makes some good points.
I frequently find that paid editors have a better understanding of what is honestly good for Wikipedia than your average Wikimedia Foundation employee.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:44 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:...might not even need to go through a formal process to detool Eloquence...
I cannot believe that you're advocating castration of Mr. Moeller. Such advocacy of physical violence cannot be tolerated here, Tim -- Wikipediocracy has a Friendly Space policy, I hope!
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

Anroth
Nice Scum
Posts: 3034
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Anroth » Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:24 pm

*snicker*
Former arbitrator and editor User:Risker has just tipped on up at my talk with a load of semantic waffle that clearly shows she barely has a grip on the issue at hand.
Well I cant recall anyone accusing Risker of having any grip on reality....

User avatar
mac
Banned
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:21 am
Contact:

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by mac » Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:14 pm

*Should the Arbitration Committee accept this case (and I do not advocate that it do so) then it should add {{u|MZMcBride}} as a party, as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =616412248 originator of the code] that created the problem. He either misunderstood what his code would do, or misrepresented it. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 22:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
She's going senile or the hospital doesn't have their opiates locked down.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:46 am

Wow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... rtesy_note

A new contender for the Dick of Distinction Award emerges.

Dumber than a box of lint.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:49 am

Here we gooooooo!
MediaViewer RfC: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/2/1/3>
That should do it.

My one wish: Make Erik Mo:eller stand for RfA.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
TungstenCarbide
Habitué
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by TungstenCarbide » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:01 am

the calculus isn't hard here, people;

The WMF say their various surveys trump the English Wikipedia communities' RFC, and therefore the RFC is invalid. The WMF then takes that power, which used to reside with the various language projects.

duh.
Gone hiking. also, beware of women with crazy head gear and a dagger.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:06 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:the calculus isn't hard here, people;

The WMF say their various surveys trump the English Wikipedia communities' RFC, and therefore the RFC is invalid. The WMF then takes that power, which used to reside with the various language projects.

duh.
This is a watershed moment.

Either the WMF prevails and RfCs on technical matters are forever dead or the community gets out their pitchforks and we have the VisualEditor burning in effigy party part 2.

My favorite part is where Erik calls his mini-tantrum a "WMF action"...Making shit up to try to win the argument when angry is the province of a toddler.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Notvelty » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:35 am

Vigilant wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:the calculus isn't hard here, people;

The WMF say their various surveys trump the English Wikipedia communities' RFC, and therefore the RFC is invalid. The WMF then takes that power, which used to reside with the various language projects.

duh.
This is a watershed moment.

Either the WMF prevails and RfCs on technical matters are forever dead or the community gets out their pitchforks and we have the VisualEditor burning in effigy party part 2.

My favorite part is where Erik calls his mini-tantrum a "WMF action"...Making shit up to try to win the argument when angry is the province of a toddler.
I dunno. That would require either that the WMF discovers integrity or that the various dark denizens that make up the core, whiny, English Wikipedia community are able to successfully kick the habit.

I'm not seeing either of those things happening, so I'm going with no real change.
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:51 am

Vigilant wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:the calculus isn't hard here, people;

The WMF say their various surveys trump the English Wikipedia communities' RFC, and therefore the RFC is invalid. The WMF then takes that power, which used to reside with the various language projects.

duh.
This is a watershed moment.

Either the WMF prevails and RfCs on technical matters are forever dead or the community gets out their pitchforks and we have the VisualEditor burning in effigy party part 2.

My favorite part is where Erik calls his mini-tantrum a "WMF action"...Making shit up to try to win the argument when angry is the province of a toddler.
I agree that this is a very important case — almost certainly the most important ArbCom case of the year. I'm going to say my piece on-wiki on this one.

Hopefully we will learn what is and what is not an "Office Action" and what is and what is not acceptable behavior by WMF accounts towards non-WMF accounts. The limits of power will be set here.

To repeat: this MediaViewer software is not bad. The precedent set here will decide the future of VisualEditor and Flow. At issue is whether Erik Moeller has the personal authority to shove his own crap software down the community's throat...

tim

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Media Viewer - A new hope

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:01 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
TungstenCarbide wrote:the calculus isn't hard here, people;

The WMF say their various surveys trump the English Wikipedia communities' RFC, and therefore the RFC is invalid. The WMF then takes that power, which used to reside with the various language projects.

duh.
This is a watershed moment.

Either the WMF prevails and RfCs on technical matters are forever dead or the community gets out their pitchforks and we have the VisualEditor burning in effigy party part 2.

My favorite part is where Erik calls his mini-tantrum a "WMF action"...Making shit up to try to win the argument when angry is the province of a toddler.
I agree that this is a very important case — almost certainly the most important ArbCom case of the year. I'm going to say my piece on-wiki on this one.

Hopefully we will learn what is and what is not an "Office Action" and what is and what is not acceptable behavior by WMF accounts towards non-WMF accounts. The limits of power will be set here.

To repeat: this MediaViewer software is not bad. The precedent set here will decide the future of VisualEditor and Flow. At issue is whether Erik Moeller has the personal authority to shove his own crap software down the community's throat...

tim
Interesting to me that there's been no appearance by the unicorn.
Perhaps Gorman's tongue wasn't simultaneously available...
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Post Reply