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

[Jim]

If only it hadn't been for those meddling kids:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#New_superprotect_protection_level.2C_coming_to_your_wiki_soon (T-H-L)

New protection level which excludes even admins from editing a page.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.js, in the grips of a wheel war over Media Viewer was just super-protected.

...

Does this mean that the WMF have managed yet again to upset members in two of its largest projects with the same "improvement"? - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

see also: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 78089.html

where the natives are, indeed, restless:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 78108.html
On 10-08-2014 15:35, svetlana wrote:
>
> This change solves a problem that does not exist.
> We either trust sysops, or we don't.

I concur. There are enough admins available to revert bad code
additions. Also, this measure is completely without effect.

*Suppose* I were a rogue admin wanting to add some bad code to common.js
that disables some WMF feature; I will be reverted by staff and
common.js is superprotected.

Oh well, I'll just create a hidden default gadget... Happy hunting!

Regards,
--
Erwin Dokter

Erik has stamped his petulant little foot. This will be fun.

I can even see some "let's down tools" drama potential here...

[Writ Keeper]

Did you see that a dewiki admin deleted and restored the page to remove superprotection (protection settings aren't preserved through deletion), and that Erik then personally restored the protection? Restless indeed; there are "fun" times ahead, I think.

[Vigilant]

Here we go!!!

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request ... protection

WMF vs the community.
The regulars won't forget or forgive this shit.


Hasten the day, motherfuckers!!!

[Vigilant]

With the WMF promising to force VisualEditor on all wiki projects in the very near future combined with überwachen Mo:eller's new überprotect rights, a perfect storm approaches waiting only for the slightest trigger.

Amidst this tension, we have this delicious bug reported more than TWO FUCKING YEARS AFTER VisualEditor WENT LIVE!
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 78105.html
Pointing to some pretty problematic architectural issues.

[Vigilant]

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 78112.html

This is, by far, the most disgusting and disrespectful action
undertaken by the Foundation that I have ever witnessed. The 2012 mass
desysopping of volunteer administrators on the WMF wiki and the past
threats of desysopping users re: VisualEditor and MediaViewer do not
even come close to this.

It is clear to me that the Foundation has agreed on this sneaky change
behind closed doors while some of the most outspoken Wikimedia
volunteers were (and still are) gathered in London. This is not the
first time that we're seeing this happpen, and it is clear to me that
the Foundation has lost all remaining moral authority to talk about
transparency and involving volunteers in the decision-making process.

Erik has forced his employees, including a so-called community
advocacy liaison, to use this opportunity to actively fight the
volunteer community of the German Wikipedia. He himself has engaged in
a wheel war over this, and continues to shove MediaViewer down the
German Wikipedia's community throat.

I'm not sure what was the purpose of this change, but if its aim was
to escalate the already tense situation between the WMF and its
volunteer communities regarding MediaViewer, protecting the
MediaWiki:Common.js page so that no one can edit it was the perfect
choice.

This action will cause a huge shitstorm, and Erik deserves every bit
of shit and mud that will be thrown his way.

You can force anything you like on your employees, but you cannot
force the volunteer community to do what you want, not in a manner
like this.

Remember that in the end, the community can exist without the WMF, but
there is no WMF without the community.

--
Tomasz

[Midsize Jake]

Maybe this will be the beginning of an ongoing pattern, whereby people will get super-pissed at the WMF for imposing the "Superprotect" feature, so the WMF will agree to back down on "Superprotect," and then a couple weeks later a mysterious new feature called "Ultraprotect" will appear, and everyone will get ultra-pissed about that, so the WMF backs down again, and then a couple of weeks later it's "Megaprotect," and then "Ironprotect," and "Batprotect," ad nauseam.

Obviously it sounds pretty silly, but when you think about it, it's probably the only way they'll actually get what they want.

[Jim]

Maybe this will be the beginning of an ongoing pattern, whereby people will get super-pissed at the WMF for imposing the "Superprotect" feature, so the WMF will agree to back down on "Superprotect," and then a couple weeks later a mysterious new feature called "Ultraprotect" will appear, and everyone will get ultra-pissed about that, so the WMF backs down again, and then a couple of weeks later it's "Megaprotect," and then "Ironprotect," and "Batprotect," ad nauseam.

Obviously it sounds pretty silly, but when you think about it, it's probably the only way they'll actually get what they want.

No, not silly, I like that. "Batprotect" is awesome.

And yes, as Vigilant would say (or has said - too lazy to scroll) - Game On, I fancy.

[Jim]

Did you see that a dewiki admin deleted and restored the page to remove superprotection (protection settings aren't preserved through deletion), and that Erik then personally restored the protection? Restless indeed; there are "fun" times ahead, I think.

In an earlier thread somewhere, I took the piss out of someone else, about something else, by saying "...historians will look back at this as a pivotal moment...", when obviously they wouldn't, and it wasn't.

"Batprotect", though? Hmm.. Maybe the historians should be watching this time? Many have postulated that WMF may have a gameplan to shed the old guard. Perhaps this will be the start of it. No surprise it's a half-arsed mess when it arrives, if so...

[Vigilant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =620670697

"I'm totally here not in a WMF capacity, never mind that I'm a software engineer for the WMF, but I am going to ridicule the people who don't want our software, but I am TOTALLY part of the project/community. You suck."

I'm going to emphasize the disclaimer here: what I write here are entirely my personal views and in no way represent anything at all official. Yes, the whole idea of staff-only superprotection sucks, and I'd really rather have seen more moderate elements on dewiki emergency-desysop the admin there who was wheel-warring to add a JS hack that appears to have gone well beyond what I've heard (mainly via Google Translate) is the actual vote result at that project. Instead any moderate elements seem to have been mostly silent while reactionaries pat each other on the back. But "oh noes! teh WMF is stealing our autonomiez!" won't do any good, because they're not. The purpose of the WMF isn't to simply be a hosting provider for Wikipedia or to serve the will of the editors. It's to collect, develop, and disseminate educational content effectively and globally, in particular by providing infrastructure and organizational framework for us to create that content. Maybe we disagree with some of the infrastructure (VE, MediaViewer, Flow, etc) they're providing, but it's not our right to overrule them any more than it's their right to interfere in the content of articles. But we can work with them and try to reach a consensus on what the best course might be. In truth, we're not even two separate groups, both because many of "us" are also "them" and because "us" is far from being only one group.
I doubt this superprotection is really a step on the way to code review for site JS and gadgets, although the need for it may spur that project. Instead, I see it as a reaction to certain admins actively breaking things in the name of "consensus" among a relative handful of radical editors who can't handle unchecking a checkbox in their preferences over the silent consensus of thousands of users who enabled the beta feature and who responded to the surveys. And I'm sure this breaking of things does nothing to "force" the WMF to listen; despite claims to the contrary, I greatly doubt (no, I have no personal knowledge of this either way) that the VE-disable hack really forced the WMF to back down. Rather I believe than the actual errors that were being introduced into pages (which is something tangible, not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and typical-mind-fallacy-based arguments) and a realization that they weren't going to be able to be fixed quickly did it and the public outcry served to bring attention to those real issues. Code review for site JS has been discussed, along with discussions of a central repository for gadgets, templates, modules, and the like (Commons-like, but not Commons), but it'll almost certainly be run mainly by volunteers rather than staff paid for that purpose.
So what does this new ability for superprotection actually mean for us? If we can manage to work with the WMF instead of letting demagogues speak and act for us, probably absolutely nothing. Sure, some of us may not like some of the new features being rolled out—I myself will likely never use VE (I like wikitext) and I'm skeptical of Flow, but I see how both of these could be good for newbies and I know (and this is from personal knowledge) they're being developed in good faith. But we'll get nowhere by trying to assert rights that we never in fact or in theory actually ever had. We need to try to compromise, to show the WMF when they sometimes go wrong instead of constantly crowing it without evidence, and to admit that sometimes we may be wrong as well. Anomie⚔ 19:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. My name is Brad Jorsch...and I'm a spineless cunt.

[Zoloft]

Split cis-privileged posts to here: link

[Mason]

John Vandenberg puts it well.

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.

[Vigilant]

John Vandenberg puts it well.

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.

[Mason]

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.

I doubt the WMF would be too broken up about either of those scenarios. "Oh no, the people who think we suck have left, and only the ones who aren't especially bothered by our approach are staying! Whatever will we do?"

[Vigilant]

Brad Jorsch aka Anomiehops in again in a totally non-WMF role but utterly backing everything they do, donchaknow?

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73789.html

People could realize that demagoguery and warring is going to make
everything much harder that it needs to be, and decide to block the people
trying to escalate the issue so that more rational people can work out a
rational solution.

On the enwiki VPT thread about this, User:Fluffernutter suggested that we
could eliminate 90% of the drama over software deployments by topic-banning
a small number of people from the discussions. That'd probably be a much
more productive topic than trying to brainstorm ways to make the situation
worse.

If we get rid of all the people who disagree with us then everything will be perfect.

What a fucking scumbag.

[Capsot]

Hi,
Actually, I think they could create a page on Meta (just like the Catalan did to support their claim to be a Chapter) and write/translate a message in each and every wikipedia to sign it. It's the kind of thing that makes the Foundation people extremely nervous...
Bye!

[thekohser]

I can think of literally nothing else any of the communities could do to force the WMF to change its approach to software deployment.

Really? Literally nothing else? It took me literally four seconds to imagine that the community could kidnap Wil Sinclair and hold him until the ransom of the WMF changing its approach to software deployment is paid. Surely, Lila would move quickly to get her mate back, safe and sound?

Oh, wait...

Okay, kidnap Erik Moeller.

No, hold on...

Kidnap Oliver Keyes.

No, that won't work either...

Hmm, maybe you were right, Mason. There's literally nothing else.

[Kumioko]

Just my opinion here but the WMF has basically just declared war on the editing community with this new superprotect. The WMF can now use this tool to jam unwanted software changes like VE and Flow down the communities throats. I truly envision a large number of the DE wiki admins and possibly others leaving and no longer participating and I wouldn't be surprised if some communities forked off their content completely. DE wiki has threatened to do it before lets not forget. I should also mention this new protection level wouldn't have been necessary if it wasn't for the negligence of the WMF forcing broken software down the communities throats and making them find ways to turn it off. This new change is just all kinds of bad.

[Triptych]

I can think of literally nothing else any of the communities could do to force the WMF to change its approach to software deployment.

Really? Literally nothing else? It took me literally four seconds to imagine that the community could kidnap Wil Sinclair and hold him until the ransom of the WMF changing its approach to software deployment is paid.

See, this is how you get in trouble. Wil will announce on his blog shortly that you harbor a detailed kidnapping and blackmail fantasy about him. And then he'll have to move to the UK!

[Jim]

I doubt the WMF would be too broken up about either of those scenarios. "Oh no, the people who think we suck have left, and only the ones who aren't especially bothered by our approach are staying! Whatever will we do?"

And, as I alluded to earlier with "strategy for shedding the old guard", whilst it's probably unlikely that anyone said: "Hey, I have a cunning plan, let's introduce a new 'Fuck You' protection level, and everyone who calls us names will leave", what's more likely is that someone said "If you do that, Erik, people might leave" and this was not considered a problem.

It was bungled through in the usual inept fashion, such that it had to be subsequently fixed so that the "delete the page and restore without BatProtect" trick no longer works (you now need "Edit" permission in order to "Delete" - well, duh...), and to use it "properly" you'd still have to protect a crapload of js and gadget or sitenotice pages etc... where hacks could be added - not just common.js - but I don't think it was done in ignorance of the shitstorm it would create - more arrogance, indifference or "ok, fuck off then if you want - see if we care". This is just "respect my authoritah", and to that extent, I guess should be unsurprising...

There was one attempt to keep the slanging match behind the bike shed here.... where DGarry (WMF) (T-C-L) (nice userpage pic, Dan - runner up, Ironholds lookalike?) tells everyone to go and bicker at the ever so quaintly named Village Pump - because of course a protection level which means there will be pages admins can't edit would not be an appropriate topic for the admin's noticeboard...

This is fun:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/153302/

Add a new protection level called "superprotect"

Requested by Erik Möller for the purposes of protecting pages such that sysop permissions are not sufficient to edit them.

Code: Select all

Tim Starling		Aug 11 12:00 AM
Patch Set 1:
I have not reviewed the situation on de.wp and have no opinion as to whether this is a good idea. I was specifically asked to implement this change by my managers.

and then - oops...:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/153345/

Do not allow a user to delete a page they can't edit

Code: Select all

This was probably overlooked in the past because usually the only users
who can delete pages also have permission to edit the relevant
protection levels.

Is this necessarily intuitive? What if a user is actually only given the permission to delete pages but not edit them?

That seems like a silly permission setup, and liable to lead to a Maslow's hammer situation.

[Mason]

what's more likely is that someone said "If you do that, Erik, people might leave" and this was not considered a problem.

Yep. If the mean, noisy people who don't like the awesome new software hand in their tools and/or storm off in protest, I'm pretty sure the WMF would consider that to be a feature, not a bug.

Literally.

[Randy from Boise]

The solution is to construct a protest template, which is automatically added to the top of every page of content. Make sure it includes wording like PLEASE DO NOT DONATE MONEY TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION UNTIL THIS MATTER IS RESOLVED.

Then get ready for the war, which WMF will win on Wiki and the volunteers will win in the media...


RfB

[Poetlister]

I can think of literally nothing else any of the communities could do to force the WMF to change its approach to software deployment.

Really? Literally nothing else? It took me literally four seconds to imagine that the community could kidnap Wil Sinclair and hold him until the ransom of the WMF changing its approach to software deployment is paid.

See, this is how you get in trouble. Wil will announce on his blog shortly that you harbor a detailed kidnapping and blackmail fantasy about him. And then he'll have to move to the UK!

Credit to Greg: he isn't proposing to kidnap Jimbo.

To make a serious point: there are precedents for creating superpowers that ordinary admins can't be trusted with, or taking powers away from ordinary admins and even bureaucrats: oversight, checkuser, desysop, user rename all come to mind.

[Randy from Boise]

The Wikimedia-l list is blowing up over this issue, as might be expected.

I just gave a barnstar to Fae (!!!) for his contention that dissent was not the same thing as disruption; the WMF bureaucracy and their apologists think that topic-banning a number of prominent critics of their outstanding, world-class engineering work is the answer to World Peace on the Wiki.

Möller is really bad at diplomacy but pretty good at power politics, I will note. Not like Jimmy Wales or Lila Tretikov are gonna call him on it.

I hope the German volunteers dig out their torches and pitchforks, the big fight is coming...


RfB

[Vigilant]

I can think of literally nothing else any of the communities could do to force the WMF to change its approach to software deployment.

Really? Literally nothing else? It took me literally four seconds to imagine that the community could kidnap Wil Sinclair and hold him until the ransom of the WMF changing its approach to software deployment is paid.

See, this is how you get in trouble. Wil will announce on his blog shortly that you harbor a detailed kidnapping and blackmail fantasy about him. And then he'll have to move to the UK!

Wil hasn't posted anything in a while.

He's going to get right back on the Oh! Nice shoes!

[Vigilant]

The Wikimedia-l list is blowing up over this issue, as might be expected.

I just gave a barnstar to Fae (!!!) for his contention that dissent was not the same thing as disruption; the WMF bureaucracy and their apologists think that topic-banning a number of prominent critics of their outstanding, world-class engineering work is the answer to World Peace on the Wiki.

Möller is really bad at diplomacy but pretty good at power politics, I will note. Not like Jimmy Wales or Lila Tretikov are gonna call him on it.

I hope the German volunteers dig out their torches and pitchforks, the big fight is coming...


RfB

Herr Mo:eller is probably the single worst communicator at the director level that I've ever seen.

I have to wonder if he does it on purpose because he's sure nobody will call him on it.

[Jim]

Herr Mo:eller is probably the single worst communicator at the director level that I've ever seen.

I have to wonder if he does it on purpose because he's sure nobody will call him on it.

You wonder?
It's transparently so. The whole setup is tailor made for someone who could never get to stamp that petulant little foot and pout about their perceived "authoritah" anywhere in the real world.

The only thing I wonder about with Erik was how many times he kicked his dog when he realised (or was told) that he couldn't be "head girl" after Sue threw in the towel, because that level of corporate visibilty for the little chap would just be too scary, even for the WMF, given his "unfortunate" and expressed views on "stuff".

[Vigilant]

Herr Mo:eller is probably the single worst communicator at the director level that I've ever seen.

I have to wonder if he does it on purpose because he's sure nobody will call him on it.

You wonder?
It's transparently so. The whole setup is tailor made for someone who could never get to stamp that petulant little foot and pout about their perceived "authoritah" anywhere in the real world.

The only thing I wonder about with Erik was how many times he kicked his dog when he realised (or was told) that he couldn't be "head girl" after Sue threw in the towel, because that level of corporate visibilty for the little chap would just be too scary, even for the WMF, given his "unfortunate" and expressed views on "stuff".

The point being that he's sooooo bad at communication that it makes you wonder if he's gone full circle like a movie that's so very terrible that it's become good again.

[Vigilant]

Pete Forsyth drives home the radish
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73817.html

Brandon, it is not as clear-cut as you suggest, and the lack of clarity
originates at the Wikimedia Foundation.

The most explicit statement I've seen on this topic is then-Executive
Director Sue Gardner, in April 2014:

"When WMF staff edit the projects, they (we) are subject to the same policies
and guidelines as everybody else. That means that if a staff person breaks
a rule on the projects, that person risks being warned or reverted or
sanctioned by the community, the same as everybody. There are no special
WMF policies related to this. ... Editorial policies are developed, and
therefore also best-understood and best-enforced, not by the WMF but by the
community."

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 71161.html

A decision about how the public consumes Wikipedia content (e.g., Media
Viewer) is an editorial decision, and it's one that the WMF has chosen to
make unilaterally. WMF has furthermore moved to give its staff rights that
facilitate unilateral behavior in the future. But to the degree that Sue
Gardner's policy remains in place (and I'm assuming it does), the WMF's
position is that any problematic actions taken by individual staff should
be subject to community processes.

As I explained in the email thread linked above, I do think this is the
wrong policy, and very unsuited to the way Wikimedia works or should work.
But it is the policy, nonetheless. Individual WMF staff have crossed
important lines, fundamentally challenging our decision-making structure
without seeking, much less securing, important buy-in. The WMF will
ultimately be accountable for the consequences; but in the meantime, the
individuals involved in the decision must be treated as responsible for
their actions, specifically because that is what the Office of the
Executive Director has stated as its expectation.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

What say you, Obersturmführer Möller?

[Vigilant]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73818.html

Saucy!

[Jim]

The point being that he's sooooo bad at communication that it makes you wonder if he's gone full circle like a movie that's so very terrible that it's become good again.

Yeah - I'm good with that.

When they pasture him out to let Brandon unfurl his wings as benevolent Director of All Things Softwarey, they'll need a sinecure for Erik.
You know it will be Director of Communications, don't you?
Baggsy first smug smile that day...

[Vigilant]

Herr Mo:eller is probably the single worst communicator at the director level that I've ever seen.

I have to wonder if he does it on purpose because he's sure nobody will call him on it.

You wonder?
It's transparently so. The whole setup is tailor made for someone who could never get to stamp that petulant little foot and pout about their perceived "authoritah" anywhere in the real world.

The only thing I wonder about with Erik was how many times he kicked his dog when he realised (or was told) that he couldn't be "head girl" after Sue threw in the towel, because that level of corporate visibilty for the little chap would just be too scary, even for the WMF, given his "unfortunate" and expressed views on "stuff".

I spent a few moments in a mentally simulated alternative future with Erik Mo:eller as executive director of the WMF.

Everyone should take five minutes and try to imagine what this would have looked like in a year.

IT. WAS. AWESOME!

[Jim]

Herr Mo:eller is probably the single worst communicator at the director level that I've ever seen.

I have to wonder if he does it on purpose because he's sure nobody will call him on it.

You wonder?
It's transparently so. The whole setup is tailor made for someone who could never get to stamp that petulant little foot and pout about their perceived "authoritah" anywhere in the real world.

The only thing I wonder about with Erik was how many times he kicked his dog when he realised (or was told) that he couldn't be "head girl" after Sue threw in the towel, because that level of corporate visibilty for the little chap would just be too scary, even for the WMF, given his "unfortunate" and expressed views on "stuff".

I spent a few moments in a mentally simulated alternative future with Erik Mo:eller as executive director of the WMF.

Everyone should take five minutes and try to imagine what this would have looked like in a year.

IT. WAS. AWESOME!

Surprsingly, I've been there already. You looked well, though somewhat astonished.

[Vigilant]

Herr Mo:eller is probably the single worst communicator at the director level that I've ever seen.

I have to wonder if he does it on purpose because he's sure nobody will call him on it.

You wonder?
It's transparently so. The whole setup is tailor made for someone who could never get to stamp that petulant little foot and pout about their perceived "authoritah" anywhere in the real world.

The only thing I wonder about with Erik was how many times he kicked his dog when he realised (or was told) that he couldn't be "head girl" after Sue threw in the towel, because that level of corporate visibilty for the little chap would just be too scary, even for the WMF, given his "unfortunate" and expressed views on "stuff".

I spent a few moments in a mentally simulated alternative future with Erik Mo:eller as executive director of the WMF.

Everyone should take five minutes and try to imagine what this would have looked like in a year.

IT. WAS. AWESOME!

Surprsingly, I've been there already. You looked well, though somewhat astonished.

That was my "O face"

[Vigilant]

I skipped over this bit.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73813.html

I'm stating that the tone here implies that Erik is some weird overlord who orders everyone around and we cower in fear and do His Bidding.

It's not true. If you want to be angry, be angry at the Foundation. Targeting Erik (or Jan) specifically is a mistake

Staggeringly disingenuous.
Erik sets much/all of the technical direction of the policy as deputy director.
Do you suppose he took this decision to the board of directors during wikimania?

He's got a grudge a mile long after the VisualEditurd was roundly rejected.
He's been plotting his little plots to reenable it on the four holdout wiki projects for a while now.

I do think that he's underestimated the amount of pent up rage this will shake loose.

P.S. Brandon Harris is a fucking idiot and ass licking suckup. Make sure to wipe Erik's shit off your nose.
P.P.S. I'd be more than happy to add your list to the people who are welcome to try to throat punch me in person.
P.P.P.S. I'll clear my schedule for you, Brandon. Steel wool and whiskey...what a twat.

[Randy from Boise]

I spent a few moments in a mentally simulated alternative future with Erik Mo:eller as executive director of the WMF.

Everyone should take five minutes and try to imagine what this would have looked like in a year.

IT. WAS. AWESOME!

Erik Möller already is the Executive Director of WMF, sillypants!!!

RfB

[Vigilant]

I spent a few moments in a mentally simulated alternative future with Erik Mo:eller as executive director of the WMF.

Everyone should take five minutes and try to imagine what this would have looked like in a year.

IT. WAS. AWESOME!

Erik Möller already is the Executive Director of WMF, sillypants!!!

RfB

Someone needs to tell me whatever happened to that screechy Russian girl from SugarCRM...

[greybeard]

Maybe I'm missing something (and please explain it gently to me if I am), but I would think that the entrenched opposition to Wikipedia would welcome "super-protect" with open arms. From my current position, I know I do.

Setting aside the apparently well-deserved mistrust for anything Erik Möller says and does, this appears to be primarily about who controls the operating code, the software of Wikipedia, and by extension the power of the "community" versus the power of the institutional owner of Wikipedia, the Foundation. It is not (yet) about the content of Wikipedia, but it should perhaps expand to encompass that.

As I understand it, this change in the underlying Wiki software was motivated by a desire to prevent certain changes to Javascript code that -- by design happenstance -- ended up accessible at the content layer. In many systems this code would be interwoven with the underlying software and never the subject of "user" modification. By "user" in this context, I mean anyone not empowered to modify and release a new underlying software system.

Clearly, the powerful denizens of Wikipedia see writing which may or may not be on the wall -- that this "super-protect" will be used in the future to secure other elements of Wikipedia, up to and including the actual content. It could be that certain sensitive biographies, for example, become super-protected. But in the meantime, it allows installation something of a plexiglass shield over the cogs and gears of the system, pages that contain bits of code and almost-code (templates, etc), modification of which affects things broadly across the Wiki.

For my part, I see the diminution of power of the Wikipedia admins as an unvarnished good. Everything super-protected becomes the responsibility of the Foundation, and the Foundation is a responsible legal entity that can be tracked down, served a subpoena, and sued if necessary. Admins -- the whole concept, as well as most of the actual people involved -- are one of the worst aspects of Wikipedia, and the root of many of its problems. Of course, the larger "community" -- or rather its lack of real cohesion, structure, and accountability -- is the real culprit, but increasingly the "community" and "admins" are one and the same.

So, while I can (also) chuckle at making fun of the bombastic and hypocritical rhetoric emanating from the Wikipidiots, I wonder why there isn't more "hasten the day" satisfaction here. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[EricBarbour]

Clearly, the powerful denizens of Wikipedia see writing which may or may not be on the wall -- that this "super-protect" will be used in the future to secure other elements of Wikipedia, up to and including the actual content. It could be that certain sensitive biographies, for example, become super-protected.

Practically guaranteed. And the first biographies to be super-protected will probably be those of the WMF's friends and supporters.

For my part, I see the diminution of power of the Wikipedia admins as an unvarnished good. Everything super-protected becomes the responsibility of the Foundation, and the Foundation is a responsible legal entity that can be tracked down, served a subpoena, and sued if necessary. Admins -- the whole concept, as well as most of the actual people involved -- are one of the worst aspects of Wikipedia, and the root of many of its problems. Of course, the larger "community" -- or rather its lack of real cohesion, structure, and accountability -- is the real culprit, but increasingly the "community" and "admins" are one and the same.

So, while I can (also) chuckle at making fun of the bombastic and hypocritical rhetoric emanating from the Wikipidiots, I wonder why there isn't more "hasten the day" satisfaction here. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Can't speak for the others, but seriously, I can't believe this would make much difference. Everyone who has power over WMF servers has abused it sooner or later, and this will just be another tool for abuse. Perhaps this is the beginning of a deliberate campaign to push out the admin corps (one can only hope).

[Midsize Jake]

Can't speak for the others, but seriously, I can't believe this would make much difference.

You can speak for me - it makes no difference whatsoever, at least in the short term. Sure, if they start "super-protecting" articles (esp. BLPs) that are clearly under libelous attack by revenge-grabbing admins, that's good, but they'll probably never have a situation like that, because admins are too enamored of their own adminship to risk doing something blatant enough to warrant that reaction.

What probably will happen, though, is that Erik & Co. will stop producing new features in the form of extensions, and instead build them right into the base MediaWiki "engine" so that they can't be turned off locally on each wiki via relatively simple Javascript edits. From the WMF's perspective, the problem is that the users think they could have a say in the matter, whether or not they actually do - which of course leads to the usual endless divisive bickering over each new feature implementation. Erik et al probably figure that everything will be fine once the users know for a fact that they have no say in that matter at all, because then the only option for pissed-off users will be to vote with their feet - and again, they're all too enamored of their own wiki-importance (not to mention way too dependent on the WMF's wikis for their narcissistic supply) to do that.

[thekohser]

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

[SB_Johnny]

For my part, I see the diminution of power of the Wikipedia admins as an unvarnished good. Everything super-protected becomes the responsibility of the Foundation, and the Foundation is a responsible legal entity that can be tracked down, served a subpoena, and sued if necessary. Admins -- the whole concept, as well as most of the actual people involved -- are one of the worst aspects of Wikipedia, and the root of many of its problems. Of course, the larger "community" -- or rather its lack of real cohesion, structure, and accountability -- is the real culprit, but increasingly the "community" and "admins" are one and the same.

So, while I can (also) chuckle at making fun of the bombastic and hypocritical rhetoric emanating from the Wikipidiots, I wonder why there isn't more "hasten the day" satisfaction here. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Replacing the volunteer admins with employees really would be the best outcome, but that would probably tip the balance and make it clear that the WMF is a publisher.

Hasten the day (for the downfall of the WMF).

[greybeard]

Replacing the volunteer admins with employees really would be the best outcome, but that would probably tip the balance and make it clear that the WMF is a publisher.

Trust Johnny to say what I tried to better and more succinctly. Yes, that's it.

[Vigilant]

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

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAA

[Zoloft]

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

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAA

Code: Select all

Dieser Benutzer ist derzeit gesperrt. Es folgt der aktuelle Eintrag aus dem Benutzersperr-Logbuch:

    21:16, 11. Aug. 2014 Koenraad (Diskussion | Beiträge) sperrte „Eloquence (Diskussion | Beiträge)“ für den Zeitraum: 1 Monat (Erstellung von Benutzerkonten gesperrt) (Setzt sich über das Meinungsbild Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Medienbetrachter hinweg)

[EricBarbour]

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

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAA

AFAICT this was mainly due to his support of the Media Player. Which is a very raw nerve over there.

[Hex]

Somewhere earlier in the Media Viewer thread I commented that the WMF's two options for going forward are either 1) admit that they are not in exclusive control of features on the various Wikipedias, or 2) Lock Everything. BatProtect is the first step down the road to option 2.

[Kelly Martin]

Somewhere earlier in the Media Viewer thread I commented that the WMF's two options for going forward are either 1) admit that they are not in exclusive control of features on the various Wikipedias, or 2) Lock Everything. BatProtect is the first step down the road to option 2.

The WMF clearly believes that it both is, and must needs be, in control of the presentation of all Wikimedia projects, in order to maximize reader and editor acquisition and retention. They have, so far, given very little concern toward the content of projects, but they have always cared very much about presentation and have messed with presentation pretty much as they please, without significant input from either editor or reader communities (instead relying mainly on "design experts" and very badly designed studies for input on these matters). This is, itself, a broader symptom of the unwillingness (or even inability) of the WMF to manage change control, specifically to identify and manage stakeholders in change processes.

Virtually every website in existence for more than a handful of months has rebranded or otherwise reworked its appearance, for good or for bad. Since reskinning a site is a "cheese move" and rebranding often is as well, there are going to be objections from user communities whenever a rebrand/reskin takes place, and community managers have to anticipate this and proactively manage it. Wikimedia has been exceptionally bad at doing this, I think largely because they think it doesn't matter: they believe that the benefits of whatever change they're making outweigh any objection that could possibly be raised and thus see no point in even listening to the objections. They fail to understand that managing a community consists of more than simply browbeating objecting voices within it into submission. Also, despite the management priority on editor acquisition and retention, there is an attitude that editors are disposable and replaceable, and thus getting rid of a problematic editor by driving them off or by provoking them into a civility breach for which they can be blocked/banned is perfectly acceptable within Wikimedia culture.

[Vigilant]

Somewhere earlier in the Media Viewer thread I commented that the WMF's two options for going forward are either 1) admit that they are not in exclusive control of features on the various Wikipedias, or 2) Lock Everything. BatProtect is the first step down the road to option 2.

The WMF clearly believes that it both is, and must needs be, in control of the presentation of all Wikimedia projects, in order to maximize reader and editor acquisition and retention. They have, so far, given very little concern toward the content of projects, but they have always cared very much about presentation and have messed with presentation pretty much as they please, without significant input from either editor or reader communities (instead relying mainly on "design experts" and very badly designed studies for input on these matters). This is, itself, a broader symptom of the unwillingness (or even inability) of the WMF to manage change control, specifically to identify and manage stakeholders in change processes.

Virtually every website in existence for more than a handful of months has rebranded or otherwise reworked its appearance, for good or for bad. Since reskinning a site is a "cheese move" and rebranding often is as well, there are going to be objections from user communities whenever a rebrand/reskin takes place, and community managers have to anticipate this and proactively manage it. Wikimedia has been exceptionally bad at doing this, I think largely because they think it doesn't matter: they believe that the benefits of whatever change they're making outweigh any objection that could possibly be raised and thus see no point in even listening to the objections. They fail to understand that managing a community consists of more than simply browbeating objecting voices within it into submission. Also, despite the management priority on editor acquisition and retention, there is an attitude that editors are disposable and replaceable, and thus getting rid of a problematic editor by driving them off or by provoking them into a civility breach for which they can be blocked/banned is perfectly acceptable within Wikimedia culture.

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.

[Vigilant]

Good lord.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 73851.html

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Craig Franklin
<cfranklin at halonetwork.net> wrote:

> I'll be writing a longer post on the Meta RFC later, but can you confirm
> whether the idea is to "superprotect" key interface pages like
> [[Mediawiki:common.js]] on a permanent basis, or will this feature only be
> used to lock pages temporarily in the case of wheel warring or other
> circumstances like what happened on de.wp?

Dear Craig,

Thank you for the question. Definitely the latter. In general, as I
mentioned in my original note, we intend to bring on-wiki
functionality that directly relates to the UI and code (i.e. chiefly
the MediaWiki: namespace, which is a highly unusual software feature
to begin with) in closer alignment with off-wiki software development,
review and deployment practices, including permission levels (e.g.
actually make it easier for anyone to submit changes, but gate changes
that impact all users).

Lila and I will post more thoughts on the larger issues within the
coming days. We deeply regret the disruptive impact this discussion is
having on Wikimedia's mission and our work together. At the same time,
working through these questions has long been overdue, and my hope is
that we can come out of this with greater clarity regarding how we
partner on issues that are often likely to be contentious, which
includes user experience changes.

Sincerely,

Erik

--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

I won't answer any of the hard questions posed to me.
I will answer this softball one and do it in a JimboEsque manner.

[Vigilant]

Here it comes, you poor fuckers!
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedi ... ls#Editing

Quarter Goals
Jul–Sep 2014

Deployment: Engaging with English Wikipedia to discover pain points as part of agreeing the criteria for a gradual ramp-up of VisualEditor availability and usage to default, expected to happen in Q2, subject to community discussions (after this point, ongoing support)
Core: Internet Explorer 9/10+ browser support
Feature: Auto-filling citations from ISBN, DOI or URL
Feature: Editing templates’ parameters as rich content, not wikitext, with helper tools for some types like image (searching Commons), link (searching wikis), date (date selector extended from Wikidata’s), and possibly others
Metrics:
Load performance: No significant changes expected – 3s 50%ile, 5s 75%ile, 25s 99%ile (same as baseline)
Save performance: Major improvement is compressing save data before submitted for save – 3s 50%ile, 6s 75%ile, 15s 99%ile (from 4s 50%ile, 8s 75%ile, 15s 99%ile baseline)
Per-edit adoption: No significant changes expected – 35% IPs, 20% post-default users, 4% pre-default users (same as baseline)

Oct–Dec 2014

Deployment: Engaging with German, Dutch and Spanish Wikipedias in a similar fashion to English Wikipedia, agreeing the ramp-up to default to happen from around Q3 onwards, subject to community discussion
Core: Initial improved support for IMEs, for key expanded if not all language groups
Feature: Table editing – inserting new and deleting existing rows and columns

Prepare your cornholes!

Like the federal government with PIPA/SOPA, the WMF intends to push this until one vote, anywhere, let's them make this the default. Barring that, it's SUPAREVILPROTECT for the javascript files.

Take it en.wp.
Take it like a man.