[WikiEN-l] You Really Don't Get It

[Cascadia]

I agree with you Todd. I've noticed some things on top of that too (I 
appologize if I double up on some).

- Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said this, but 
it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw the 
book at a seasoned editor.
- Arrogance by some seasoned editors: I know some people will probably want 
to lynch me, but there seems to be a lot of arrogance from some editors that 
have a lot of edits under their belt, as if they are supreme masters of 
Wikipedia, and what they say goes. Don't bother discussing or even arguing 
with them. A newer, inexperienced editor eventually gets pissed that user:x 
has declared themselves god, gets to do damn near what ever he/she wants, 
with no recourse. The newer user follow similar action: shot on sight.
- Wiki-movements: such as kill buerocracy by whatever means possible, etc.
- Lack of accountability for Admins: Although most admins do a fine job, 
there are times where issues arrise that if a complaintant has a legitimate 
argument, they have a snowballs chance in hell of any discipline actually 
occuring because Admin Joe makes X good actions. Just like any other 
organization, sometimes all it takes is one.
- Damn near everything else Todd stated.

I think some of these issues can be resolved quickly:
- Todd covered Newbie biting vs. Vetreran killing.
- Arrogance: Just needs to stop. A reminder that this is a community and as 
such, everyone has the right/ability to enter into any discussion. I doesn't 
matter if you've been here 4 years, or 4 days, made 500,000 edis, or 500. 
Cases of arrogance or "I am king" attitudes need to also have a clear 
discipline schedule.
- Wiki-movements... not much can be done as far as I can see, but they are 
annoying none the less.
- Simply set up a Admin Complaint and Discipline structure: An editor makes 
a complaint against admin X to a specific location, uninvolved Admin Y 
(preferibly not his buddy) reviews and determines if it is legit (diffs 
would be needed). If it is legit, then it is added to the admin's "complaint 
count", and an action is taken based off a predetermined complaint schedule.
- Overall: ENSTILL A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. Too much, editors are simply a name 
or IP address. Encourage entoracting between editors.

Just my 2 cents.

-Cascadia.



"Todd Allen" <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote in 
message news:2a34d5a90704202356l167243e9n27e0654ef5f4e4d9 at mail.gmail.com...
>I think you have a very good point there, and having looked through a
> lot of the flameouts, I believe that is in the majority of the cases
> the reason that people leave. Ironically, in more than one case, I've
> seen "good faith" get assumed on a troll's behalf while someone who's
> been around for a long time and generally demonstrated good judgment
> is interrogated for "biting" them by delivering the ultimatum they
> should be getting in that case-either stop the problem behavior, go
> away, or get helped to go away.
>
> To that, I can actually see solutions.
>
> -I've suggested that new users be disabled from creating mainspace
> pages (mainspace only would be best if it were technically feasible,
> this would still give them the ability to create their user pages,
> start up discussion on a talk page if the page hasn't yet been
> started, etc.) until they've been around for 4 days and made 50 edits
> (or perhaps 20 mainspace edits.) If someone can manage to make 20
> mainspace edits, stick around for 4 days, and not get indef blocked,
> they're probably not an idiot or a vandal, and they've probably
> started to gain at least a limited understanding of content policy by
> working with existing articles. They probably also should be
> restricted from uploading images during this time. If they want to
> upload free-use ones, they should be doing that on Commons anyway. If
> they want to upload fair-use, they shouldn't be doing that first thing
> upon joining anyway.
>
> Yes, this will deter a few good people from joining. It'll also deter
> a lot of bad ones, and knock down the neverending CSD backlog. If
> anything, it's more "bitey" to say "Well, that new page you made about
> your (best friend/grandfather/loved one that just died/favorite
> obscure (band|website)) is going to get summarily nuked" rather than
> "Hey, before you make a new article, we'd like to be sure you
> understand a little about how things work here. If you're convinced
> you've got it down already, wait a few days, or articles for creation
> is right this way." The CSD backlogs and newpage patrol burn out a
> -lot- of admins and patrollers, and are inordinate timesinks as well.
> We don't just need to ask ourselves "But what if we miss out on one
> good article that way?" We also need to ask ourselves "If the number
> of articles we must speedy is reduced to a quarter its size, what
> could those who are tagging and deleting them be doing with the time
> instead? What if we're missing out on thirty good articles that way,
> as well as a ton of improvements to existing ones, and burning out
> great editors in the process?"
>
> -There's no reason for vandals to be given 3 or 4 warnings before the
> hammer comes down. They should get one, telling them their conduct is
> unacceptable, period, and if they pull it again they get a nice block.
> If they apologize nicely, and clearly understand why it happened and
> show intent to quit it, there's always an unblock button. In my
> experience, however, it's pretty rare that a vandal suddenly "comes
> around", except in a few cases of test editing where they go to the
> sandbox instead. Again, the question is "What if half the RC patrol
> could be dispatched to the cleanup and wikification backlogs instead?"
>
> -We need, as a community, to be a lot quicker to give the boot to
> trolls, edit warriors, and POV pushers. This goes triple if they're
> single-purpose. It's very rare that these people "come around", or do
> anything but drive good people off the project.
>
> -We also need to come down a hell of a lot harder on people trying to
> own articles, or who are a little too liberal with reverting. Every
> time you make an edit, you can look right down below, and it'll tell
> you "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or
> redistributed by others, do not submit it." OWNership drives a -lot-
> of people off, and prevents articles from ever being improved. If at
> all possible, and there are no overriding concerns (such as BLP or
> complete factual inaccuracy) which demand immediate reversion, poor
> but relevant and good-faith edits should be sourced, improved, and
> integrated, not reverted. And those who revert well-sourced material
> relevant to an article because they don't like what it says should be
> shown no mercy whatsoever.
>
> -We need to make cutting easier, and quit calling people who trim
> down, merge, and delete articles "vandals" or "deletionists". Cutting
> is a healthy, natural part of the editorial process. (Of course, this
> presumes that such cuts are made with a clear rationale.) Once again,
> people need to see that sentence in the edit window. If you don't want
> your work edited, possibly beyond recognition, possibly even removed,
> certainly without your approval, you're posting it in the wrong place.
>
> -People who don't discuss a questionable action with the person who
> took it before heading to ANI or RFC or wherever else need a good
> troutslapping. Sometimes, the person may really have a good rationale
> (or bring to your attention something you didn't know), and the matter
> can be dropped. Other times, you may convince them (or bring to their
> attention something they didn't even know), and they'll happily
> reverse themselves. Of course, the same applies to those who refuse to
> discuss issues with those who do raise civil questions about their
> actions and explain the rationale behind them, therefore virtually
> guaranteeing escalation.
>
> My apologies for the length. I do believe if we can solve these
> issues, we can significantly and realistically reduce burnout of good
> editors and admins. If we lose a few trolls, vandals, and vanity bios
> in the process, well, that's just an added bonus.
>
> -- 
> Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>