G'day Jeff,
David Goodman wrote:
What concerns me is that we might find some FA candidates in there. Can we think of an algorithm? DGG
Well, for one, there's plenty of vandalistic nonsense and copyright violations in the stacks of deleted stuff. The things we lose (and thus harm the project in ways that can't ever be truly measured) are the types that are speedied for spam or notability or because a random administratordeems them too short.
To be fair, it's not exactly poor judgment from admins --- well, it is, but not entirely. In my experience dealing with speedies, the vast majority of improper speedies are articles that some CVUer incorrectly tagged and the admin just speedied without looking, trusting the CVUer's judgment. Where an admin commits an improper speedy off his own bat, it's usually something along the lines of he judged that he didn't need to follow process in this case. Incompetence vs IAR, in other words.
Towards the end of my adminship, I was removing improperly-placed tags at least as often as I was speedying articles. Admins tend to know what they're doing, but get very lazy and instead rely on the judgment of users who *don't* know what they're doing but think they do because these chappies on the anti-vandalism IRC channel gave them the good oil.
I remember one article about an American high school that was tagged for deletion on notability grounds. Another article, about a band, was tagged for deletion because the tagger's favourite band adopted the same name ten years before this band and he wanted all mention of the later fellows excised. In both cases the article was deleted, without the deleting admin even reading the tag. In the first case, the relevant admin said, "Whoops, I wasn't paying enough attention. Sorry, will do better in future." In the second case, the relevant admin said "Bollocks", but got in trouble later anyway for the gigantic amounts of improper speedies he was effecting.
It's too much to ask that speedy taggers Get A Clue, especially when you have organisations (I won't name it again, in view of geni's sensibilities) who actively work to suppress Cluefulness in many of our harder-working editors. But I don't think it's too much to ask that admins, at the very least, Learn What You're Supposed To Be Fucking Doing before they do it, and Pay Attention You Dickhead before deleting stuff that should never have been removed.
<snip data/>
So if you can filter out the vandalism and copyvios, you might actuallyhave a stronger group than what's assumed.
Absolutely.
Cheers,
Gallagher Mark George wrote:
To be fair, it's not exactly poor judgment from admins --- well, it is, but not entirely.
No, the blame falls almost entirely on the people clicking the button. If administrators are trusting that the tags are correct without thinking, that's a bigger problem than the incorrect tags.
Where an admin commits an improper speedy off his own bat, it's
usually something along the lines of he judged that he didn't need to follow process in this case. Incompetence vs IAR, in other words.
IAR is incompetence. It's finding bullshit justification for what one knows is incorrect.
Towards the end of my adminship, I was removing improperly-placed tags at least as often as I was speedying articles.
I do plenty of CSD patrol, and I'm typically removing three or four tags a glance at this stage. I'm close to doing some monitoring again to see if admins are doing as good a job about it.
It's too much to ask that speedy taggers Get A Clue, especially when you have organisations (I won't name it again, in view of geni's sensibilities) who actively work to suppress Cluefulness in many of our harder-working editors. But I don't think it's too much to ask that admins, at the very least, Learn What You're Supposed To Be Fucking Doing before they do it, and Pay Attention You Dickhead before deleting stuff that should never have been removed.
But but but, the job is SO HARD, having to deal with ALL THE CRAP.
Really, I wish we could put together some sort of limited adminship situation. I'm close to starting to call for certain administrators to have their deletion tools limited because they Just Don't Get It over and over, and do nothing to change it.
-Jeff
Really, I wish we could put together some sort of limited adminship situation. I'm close to starting to call for certain administrators to have their deletion tools limited because they Just Don't Get It over and over, and do nothing to change it.
Warn them on their talk page the first time, take them to RFC the second time (often a waste of time, but it's a hoop you have to jump through) and ArbCom the first - 3 chances is more than enough. I think ArbCom would take action - at the very least a stern warning such that they won't have any room for excuses the next time and will get desysopped.
I don't think there is a need for limited adminship - if people can't handle being an admin, they shouldn't be one, simple as that.
Perhaps we need a new system to take the place of RFC in cases like this - a Motions to Censure (MTC) page where anyone can take reports of misuse of admin tools (I would at least start it as only for admins, but if it goes well it could be expanded to problems with anyone). They would explain the problem, giving appropriate evidence and people would discuss it with '''Support''' and '''Oppose''' !votes (this would be very similar to RfA, but it should work well since nothing actually happens if you are censured, it's just a formal warning, so it being closed incorrectly isn't a big problem). The discussion is then closed after a week (I'm thinking either by a crat or an arbitrator) and the motion to censure either passes or fails. If it passes, then the admin had better get their act together or it will be a very short ArbCom case.
There is an argument for only allowing admins to !vote. It would carry more weight if it's admins keeping control of each other, and it would stop people trying to censure admins every time they protect the wrong version. The obvious argument is the cabal argument, although seeing as this would be a new thing, I'm not sure how it can make anything worse. Non-admins would be allowed to express their opinions, but they wouldn't be taken into account when closing.
Opinions? Is it worth writing this up as a proper policy proposal? (Try saying that three times quickly! ;))
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Warn them on their talk page the first time, take them to RFC the second time (often a waste of time, but it's a hoop you have to jump through) and ArbCom the first - 3 chances is more than enough. I think ArbCom would take action - at the very least a stern warning such that they won't have any room for excuses the next time and will get desysopped.
I've been burned enough by RfC already and made the issue known in enough places that I think I'll be avoiding that, but you've pretty much nailed my plan of attack on this point. I've just got to wait for time to slow down a bit so I can actually focus.
Perhaps we need a new system to take the place of RFC in cases like this - a Motions to Censure (MTC) page where anyone can take reports of misuse of admin tools (I would at least start it as only for admins, but if it goes well it could be expanded to problems with anyone).
I think CN could work well for this sort of thing, but something should be done about RfC, too.
There is an argument for only allowing admins to !vote. It would carry more weight if it's admins keeping control of each other, and it would stop people trying to censure admins every time they protect the wrong version.
This would never work, they're too busy protecting eachother. This isn't a cabalism thing, but a simple fact that, unless it's egregious abuse, you'll likely have enough friends to stop by and stand up for you even if you were completely off track. I've seen it happen too many times at this point.
Opinions? Is it worth writing this up as a proper policy proposal? (Try saying that three times quickly! ;))
I'll pitch in where I can, certainly.
-Jeff
Perhaps we need a new system to take the place of RFC in cases like this - a Motions to Censure (MTC) page where anyone can take reports of misuse of admin tools (I would at least start it as only for admins, but if it goes well it could be expanded to problems with anyone).
I think CN could work well for this sort of thing, but something should be done about RfC, too.
Is CN really much different to RfC? The main point of my idea is that there is a definite closing time and a definite result (even though that result has no direct effect on anything).
There is an argument for only allowing admins to !vote. It would carry more weight if it's admins keeping control of each other, and it would stop people trying to censure admins every time they protect the wrong version.
This would never work, they're too busy protecting eachother. This isn't a cabalism thing, but a simple fact that, unless it's egregious abuse, you'll likely have enough friends to stop by and stand up for you even if you were completely off track. I've seen it happen too many times at this point.
If it was just admins, then I was thinking it should only require a simple majority to pass. As long as there are enough admins contributing to the process I don't think friends stopping by would be enough.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is CN really much different to RfC?
In cases like this, I think so. It reduces the lawyering that is involved with the whole "oh, sorry, two people didn't actually sign the top section, so we'll delete it" thing, it allows for better discussion as opposed to the wonky sloganeering of the "Users who certify this statement" thing, and everyone knows RfC is worthless for user conduct, so it has that stigma.
The main point of my idea is that there is a definite closing time and a definite result (even though that result has no direct effect on anything).
Yeah, that's definitely useful.
-Jeff
On 11/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
In cases like this, I think so. It reduces the lawyering that is involved with the whole "oh, sorry, two people didn't actually sign the top section, so we'll delete it" thing, it allows for better discussion as opposed to the wonky sloganeering of the "Users who certify this statement" thing, and everyone knows RfC is worthless for user conduct, so it has that stigma.
You realise of course all that came about for actual reason, and that's to keep it from becoming a venue for personal attack.
(c.f. a recent deleted RFC 'certified' by five people, only the first of whom could actually show they had tried to solve the dispute before the mudslinging match. No, that's not what it's for.)
WP:CN recently got taken to MFD for being a second port of abuse. No, you *don't* vote on banning people.
The main point of my idea is that there is a definite closing time and a definite result (even though that result has no direct effect on anything).
Yeah, that's definitely useful.
So how to not make it a troll magnet?
- d.
So how to not make it a troll magnet?
That is the obvious problem, yes. My suggestion about making it so only admins can take part was designed to solve that problem, but it does introduce problems of its own.
It is quite common for groups to have rules about passing motions of censure against its members. It does seem appropriate for it to be admins that censure admins.
David Gerard wrote:
You realise of course all that came about for actual reason, and that's to keep [RfC] from becoming a venue for personal attack.
Then it's failed. Often, it simply becomes a pile-on to attack the filer.
(c.f. a recent deleted RFC 'certified' by five people, only the first of whom could actually show they had tried to solve the dispute before the mudslinging match. No, that's not what it's for.)
And why RfC is useless in some cases - this need for multiple people to step in isn't helpful if the person causing the problem has enough people backing them.
WP:CN recently got taken to MFD for being a second port of abuse. No, you *don't* vote on banning people.
I know, and I think it got kept, or will at least end up no consensus.
So how to not make it a troll magnet?
First, I think we need to stop worrying about possible trolls and start worrying about the well-being of the project. If we're worried about trolling to the point where good-faith editors can't air their grievences, what's the point?
-Jeff
On 5/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
First, I think we need to stop worrying about possible trolls and start worrying about the well-being of the project. If we're worried about trolling to the point where good-faith editors can't air their grievences, what's the point?
-Jeff
-- If you can read this, I'm not at home.
And if you're so worried about getting new editors to the point that established editors are expendable and actively encourage to exit, then there's no point in encouraging new editors (not that, as I pointed out, any of the administrators advocating this bothere to do so)--as all new editors eventually become the expendable trash of established editors.
No one is listening to what established editors are saying, here or on Wikipedia, grievances or anything else.
KP
On 11/05/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Warn them on their talk page the first time, take them to RFC the second time (often a waste of time, but it's a hoop you have to jump through)
Often important in that it can get a lot of people who don't agree with oneself and those one usually works with, and show that one may be wrong after all.
- d.
Often important in that it can get a lot of people who don't agree with oneself and those one usually works with, and show that one may be wrong after all.
That's certainly the idea, but it isn't very effective at doing that. I don't doubt that it does work sometimes, but not nearly as often as it should.
On 11/05/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Often important in that it can get a lot of people who don't agree with oneself and those one usually works with, and show that one may be wrong after all.
That's certainly the idea, but it isn't very effective at doing that. I don't doubt that it does work sometimes, but not nearly as often as it should.
I've seen a lot of "slam dunk" RFCs that proved to, er, not be. Tony Sidaway got some great ones. I think Tony Sidaway 3 sets the record for stupidest RFC I've seen on the wiki.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I've seen a lot of "slam dunk" RFCs that proved to, er, not be. Tony Sidaway got some great ones. I think Tony Sidaway 3 sets the record for stupidest RFC I've seen on the wiki.
But, see, I think that's part of the problem with RfC - where's the accountability? In the two years plus I've been here, what has an RfC - or an ArbCom case, for that matter - done to curtail Tony Sidaway. Hell, some people simply laugh it off, kinda like a Red Sox fan - "Manny being Manny"/"Tony being Tony."
I think situations like that are where RfC is worthless, when something needs to be done and it won't happen because of this, that, or the other thing.
-Jeff
On 11/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I've seen a lot of "slam dunk" RFCs that proved to, er, not be. Tony Sidaway got some great ones. I think Tony Sidaway 3 sets the record for stupidest RFC I've seen on the wiki.
But, see, I think that's part of the problem with RfC - where's the accountability? In the two years plus I've been here, what has an RfC - or an ArbCom case, for that matter - done to curtail Tony Sidaway. Hell, some people simply laugh it off, kinda like a Red Sox fan - "Manny being Manny"/"Tony being Tony."
Or perhaps he didn't do anything wrong, and that because you don't like it just isn't sufficient.
I think situations like that are where RfC is worthless, when something needs to be done and it won't happen because of this, that, or the other thing.
I think what it shows is that your assumption that where there's smoke there MUST be fire is *not* correct, and that there is in fact good reason to be profoundly sceptical of your proposals for setting up new lynch mob mechanisms because you can't sufficiently punish these offenders you refuse to name using the existing ones.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Or perhaps he didn't do anything wrong, and that because you don't like it just isn't sufficient.
I really don't think that's the case, I'm not exactly picking a borderline individual. 3 RfCs and 2 ArbCom cases...
I think what it shows is that your assumption that where there's smoke there MUST be fire is *not* correct, and that there is in fact good reason to be profoundly sceptical of your proposals for setting up new lynch mob mechanisms because you can't sufficiently punish these offenders you refuse to name using the existing ones.
This has nothing to do with smoke and fire, though. It's rather discouraging to have calls for accountability be dismissed as lynch mob tactics, though. Quite counterproductive.
-Jeff
On 11/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Or perhaps he didn't do anything wrong, and that because you don't like it just isn't sufficient.
I really don't think that's the case, I'm not exactly picking a borderline individual. 3 RfCs and 2 ArbCom cases...
Did you read the RFCs? Did you see the one where he was RFCd for actually *following* the deletion policy? (Quite literally, he was RFCd for not violating it the way a pile of people wanted it violated.) The one where he was RFCd for refactoring talk page signatures so long they hampered actual discussion? (And where everyone complaining had signatures like a smurf had taken acid and thrown up, and everyone saying the RFC was stupid and Wikpedia was not Myspace had simple ones?) Those are examples of a lynch mob not getting their way.
Your reply to me says "but look at all this smoke!" I suggest it went nowhere because that was the right way for it to go. They utterly failed to make a case.
I think what it shows is that your assumption that where there's smoke there MUST be fire is *not* correct, and that there is in fact good reason to be profoundly sceptical of your proposals for setting up new lynch mob mechanisms because you can't sufficiently punish these offenders you refuse to name using the existing ones.
This has nothing to do with smoke and fire, though. It's rather discouraging to have calls for accountability be dismissed as lynch mob tactics, though. Quite counterproductive.
You still won't name the people you consider grievous offenders who need to be deleted from the wiki to make everything magically better, and you refuse to consider the mechanisms that do exist because troublesome things like actually convincing people you have a case stand in the way.
- d.
On 5/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Did you read the RFCs? Did you see the one where he was RFCd for actually *following* the deletion policy? (Quite literally, he was RFCd for not violating it the way a pile of people wanted it violated.)
Just out of curiosity, did that "pile of people" attempt to get that part of the deletion policy, whatever that was, changed or did they think their "pile" was large enough to constitute a consensus, consider the policy "changed", and file the RFC on Tony for not following the "new policy"?
On 12/05/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Did you read the RFCs? Did you see the one where he was RFCd for actually *following* the deletion policy? (Quite literally, he was RFCd for not violating it the way a pile of people wanted it violated.)
Just out of curiosity, did that "pile of people" attempt to get that part of the deletion policy, whatever that was, changed or did they think their "pile" was large enough to constitute a consensus, consider the policy "changed", and file the RFC on Tony for not following the "new policy"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway
"This adminstrator has subverted the intent of VfD on numerous occasions." i.e., he didn't just count votes.
- d.
On 12/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway "This adminstrator has subverted the intent of VfD on numerous occasions." i.e., he didn't just count votes.
Note that it was soon after this that VFD became AFD, and officially not an exercise in vote-counting.
- d.
Officially. But that's really the same as calling a duck a chicken. It still quacks.
There's no significant difference between AFD and the former VFD. It *is* a strict vote. The only time the "count' is disregarded is when the closing admin wants to push his own way. This usually leading to lynch-mobbery, several users "quitting", and an eventual "consensus" for the decision of the closing administrator. Usually.
Anytime an admin steps in on a controversial AFD and decides "today it's a discussion, and not a vote" will have several hundred editors calling for his head in the next 24 hours. This is quite disruptive to the project. Even more so than an exiled user created 400 sockpuppets. For example.
David Gerard wrote:
On 12/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway "This adminstrator has subverted the intent of VfD on numerous occasions." i.e., he didn't just count votes.
Note that it was soon after this that VFD became AFD, and officially not an exercise in vote-counting.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day BA,
Officially. But that's really the same as calling a duck a chicken. It still quacks.
There's no significant difference between AFD and the former VFD. It *is* a strict vote. The only time the "count' is disregarded is when the closing admin wants to push his own way. This usually leading to lynch-mobbery, several users "quitting", and an eventual "consensus" for the decision of the closing administrator. Usually.
Anytime an admin steps in on a controversial AFD and decides "today it's a discussion, and not a vote" will have several hundred editors calling for his head in the next 24 hours. This is quite disruptive to the project. Even more so than an exiled user created 400 sockpuppets. For example.
It sounds like AfD has changed significantly since I was away. I *did* get a few people saying "But ... but ... but the votecount!" in response to my AfD closures (where I declared, early and often, that I wouldn't start counting in the first place, let alone discount the results) but nothing like the widespread wailing and gnashing of teeth you describe above.
Perhaps I was doing it wrong.
On Sat, 12 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway
"This adminstrator has subverted the intent of VfD on numerous occasions." i.e., he didn't just count votes.
While administrators are not supposed to count votes, neither are they supposed to discount them unnecessarily. It's possible that the correct result should be to keep the article even though counting the votes suggests otherwise. After all, it isn't supposed to be a vote count; sometimes the correct result doesn't match the vote count. But it's much less plausible when it's constantly being done by the same admin. While not following a vote count is expected some of the time, someone who *consistently* fails to follow a vote count is doing something wrong. And some of the examples seem rather egregious even as single examples; [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names for the human penis]] had 14 votes, only one of which was "keep". He closed it as "no consensus". The only way in which that had no consensus was that people wanted to get rid of it and couldn't reach consensus on exactly what way to get rid of it.
On 5/11/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway
"This adminstrator has subverted the intent of VfD on numerous occasions." i.e., he didn't just count votes.
While administrators are not supposed to count votes, neither are they supposed to discount them unnecessarily. It's possible that the correct result should be to keep the article even though counting the votes suggests otherwise. After all, it isn't supposed to be a vote count; sometimes the correct result doesn't match the vote count. But it's much less plausible when it's constantly being done by the same admin. While not following a vote count is expected some of the time, someone who *consistently* fails to follow a vote count is doing something wrong. And some of the examples seem rather egregious even as single examples; [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names for the human penis]] had 14 votes, only one of which was "keep". He closed it as "no consensus". The only way in which that had no consensus was that people wanted to get rid of it and couldn't reach consensus on exactly what way to get rid of it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
When I'm closing an AfD, I will look at the number of editors who advocate a given position as -one- factor, and I believe that is important in evaluating consensus. But it's not the only factor. If there are a ton of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT/OTHERCRAPEXISTS/HAVENTHEARDOFIT/GOOGLETEST/etc. arguments, I'll probably give those significantly less weight than the arguments from those who show they actually did some looking into it.
From the point of view of those who disliked the article, no harm was
done--the article was subsequently redirected to "penis" and the content moved to Wikisaurus. I read that AfD as indicating that those involved did not know what they wanted to do with the material (for if it was to be merged there was no need for an AfD) and the arguments were a mixture of idontlikeit and that it was not a very good list. No consensus is a safe decision: it does not delete, and it also sets no precedent for keeping. DGG
On 5/11/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway
"This adminstrator has subverted the intent of VfD on numerous occasions." i.e., he didn't just count votes.
While administrators are not supposed to count votes, neither are they supposed to discount them unnecessarily. It's possible that the correct result should be to keep the article even though counting the votes suggests otherwise. After all, it isn't supposed to be a vote count; sometimes the correct result doesn't match the vote count. But it's much less plausible when it's constantly being done by the same admin. While not following a vote count is expected some of the time, someone who *consistently* fails to follow a vote count is doing something wrong. And some of the examples seem rather egregious even as single examples; [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names for the human penis]] had 14 votes, only one of which was "keep". He closed it as "no consensus". The only way in which that had no consensus was that people wanted to get rid of it and couldn't reach consensus on exactly what way to get rid of it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Gerard wrote:
Your reply to me says "but look at all this smoke!" I suggest it went nowhere because that was the right way for it to go. They utterly failed to make a case.
This, really, is evidence of the problem, though.
You still won't name the people you consider grievous offenders who need to be deleted from the wiki to make everything magically better, and you refuse to consider the mechanisms that do exist because troublesome things like actually convincing people you have a case stand in the way.
If you want the list privately, then by all means with some caveats - I wouldn't tip my hand publically at this stage and get blackballed any further than I already am.
-Jeff
doc wrote:
Put up, or shut up?
You're not on it?
-Jeff
On 13/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Your reply to me says "but look at all this smoke!" I suggest it went nowhere because that was the right way for it to go. They utterly failed to make a case.
This, really, is evidence of the problem, though.
Again: you've failed to show there's actually a problem there.
Remember, after that RFC was when it was changed from VFD to AFD specifically to emphasise that this was *not a vote*. Because Tony had in fact acted entirely correctly, and the actions complained of in the RFC were and are the way it's in fact supposed to work.
- d.
On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:34:26 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Remember, after that RFC was when it was changed from VFD to AFD specifically to emphasise that this was *not a vote*. Because Tony had in fact acted entirely correctly, and the actions complained of in the RFC were and are the way it's in fact supposed to work.
Yes. I find it bizarre that Jeff uses Tony as an example anyway, given that Tony is no longer an admin. Mind you, I have always thought that Tony's request for desysopping should have been greeted with "take a wikibreak, come back in a fortnight". I can't think of a single edit or comment form Tony that did not improve the project. Still, the upside is that he now edits much more than he did as an admin and clerk, so the project benefits there.
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:48:51 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You still won't name the people you consider grievous offenders who need to be deleted from the wiki to make everything magically better, and you refuse to consider the mechanisms that do exist because troublesome things like actually convincing people you have a case stand in the way.
David, thanks for this. God knows I've stood up for Jeff against the baying mob on several occasions, but he really does not help his case by making vague and unspecific assertions, and then not following process when he is, in every other respect, a classic process wonk.
Jeff, read David's comments and learn from them. Really. In case you had not realised, David is an inclusionist, and if you don't have him onside then you may take that as a good indication that you are probably missing something important.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
But, see, I think that's part of the problem with RfC - where's the accountability? In the two years plus I've been here, what has an RfC - or an ArbCom case, for that matter - done to curtail Tony Sidaway. Hell, some people simply laugh it off, kinda like a Red Sox fan - "Manny being Manny"/"Tony being Tony."
I think situations like that are where RfC is worthless, when something needs to be done and it won't happen because of this, that, or the other thing.
There was a lovely comment on a recent one (I paraphrase from memory)
"I see a '4' in the title of this page. Perhaps we should take that as indicating user RFCs just don't work very well."
On 5/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/05/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Often important in that it can get a lot of people who don't agree with oneself and those one usually works with, and show that one may be wrong after all.
That's certainly the idea, but it isn't very effective at doing that. I don't doubt that it does work sometimes, but not nearly as often as it should.
I've seen a lot of "slam dunk" RFCs that proved to, er, not be. Tony Sidaway got some great ones. I think Tony Sidaway 3 sets the record for stupidest RFC I've seen on the wiki.
Your memory clearly does not extend far enough. Maybe it was before your time, but [[User:Wik]] RFC:d the notorius vandal [[User:Angela]] some years ago. That is pretty hard to beat.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 11/05/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Towards the end of my adminship, I was removing improperly-placed tags at least as often as I was speedying articles. Admins tend to know what they're doing, but get very lazy and instead rely on the judgment of users who *don't* know what they're doing but think they do because these chappies on the anti-vandalism IRC channel gave them the good oil.
I remember one article about an American high school that was tagged for deletion on notability grounds.
My personal favourite is currently [[Edward the Elder]] - a tenth-century King of Wessex, succeeded Alfred the Great. Someone replaced the page with particularly nasty vandalism, defamatory claims about someone entirely unrelated - a guy in the US called Jeremy, in fact.
Somone promptly tagged it for deletion, and another person rolled in and deleted it; all gone in ten minutes, without either of them looking at the history or wondering why the page had such an irrelevant title...
(A bit off topic) That also reminds me of someone claiming an 11th-century King was nn because it only had 20000 Google hits.
On 5/10/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/05/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Towards the end of my adminship, I was removing improperly-placed tags at least as often as I was speedying articles. Admins tend to know what they're doing, but get very lazy and instead rely on the judgment of users who *don't* know what they're doing but think they do because these chappies on the anti-vandalism IRC channel gave them the good oil.
I remember one article about an American high school that was tagged for deletion on notability grounds.
My personal favourite is currently [[Edward the Elder]] - a tenth-century King of Wessex, succeeded Alfred the Great. Someone replaced the page with particularly nasty vandalism, defamatory claims about someone entirely unrelated - a guy in the US called Jeremy, in fact.
Somone promptly tagged it for deletion, and another person rolled in and deleted it; all gone in ten minutes, without either of them looking at the history or wondering why the page had such an irrelevant title...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/10/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
My personal favourite is currently [[Edward the Elder]] - a tenth-century King of Wessex, succeeded Alfred the Great. Someone replaced the page with particularly nasty vandalism, defamatory claims about someone entirely unrelated - a guy in the US called Jeremy, in fact.
Somone promptly tagged it for deletion, and another person rolled in and deleted it;
Reminds me of another case where some bozo took the Article about "City Boy" a notable band from the 70s and morphed it into an article about a current non-notable musician with the same name. It got deleted via AFD without anybody checking its history. Later restored via DRV.
Gallagher Mark George wrote:
To be fair, it's not exactly poor judgment from admins --- well, it is, but not entirely. In my experience dealing with speedies, the vast majority of improper speedies are articles that some CVUer incorrectly tagged and the admin just speedied without looking, trusting the CVUer's judgment. Where an admin commits an improper speedy off his own bat, it's usually something along the lines of he judged that he didn't need to follow process in this case. Incompetence vs IAR, in other words.
I usually do a fair bit of research before speedying anything. Google it, look at the page history, etc. I delete far more than I remove tags -- in fact I rarely remove tags, unless the cited CSD clearly doesn't apply.
Why? Because sometimes I half-agree with the tag, but don't think that the cited CSD is fully met by the article. Maybe in spirit but not in letter. So I just leave the article as it is, hoping another admin can come to a decision.
The fact is that C:CSD is full of BS pretty much all the time. Any admin will tell you that clearing out CSD is pretty much hell. For some reason this is not the case with WP:AIV. There's usually a small backlog there, but it's a lot more fun to clean up, probably because there are fewer entries. But I digress.
The fact is that admins clearing C:CSD are going to be more willing to push the button than remove the tag, because, well, pushing the button is less effort, and I would speculate (with no evidence at all) that the majority of CSD patrollers are deletionist, myself included. I like to think that I have a clue, but sometimes I can't bring myself to push the button or remove the tag. I know it's drivel but we don't have a CSD for drivel that looks like it might make a shred of sense.
And that's why when I do look at C:CSD I stay there for about five minutes, then wonder what the hell I'm doing since I get more work done at RC patrol or watching AIV.
Many admins told me before my self-nom that admin work was mostly thankless grunt work. In my limited experience, C:CSD is exactly what they were referring to. You spend hours there to get almost nothing done, then get pissed on by both the authors and taggers of the articles you touched.
Some admins may be reckless, but the majority are trying to sort the wheat from the chaff and make the occasional slip-up. The more articles an admin deals with in this context the more mistakes he or she will make. I'm not saying they should be given a free pass, but a little respect for all the BS they have to put up with wouldn't hurt.
I usually do a fair bit of research before speedying anything. Google it, look at the page history, etc. I delete far more than I remove tags -- in fact I rarely remove tags, unless the cited CSD clearly doesn't apply.
Why? Because sometimes I half-agree with the tag, but don't think that the cited CSD is fully met by the article. Maybe in spirit but not in letter. So I just leave the article as it is, hoping another admin can come to a decision.
I don't generally do any research when patrolling CSD. The criteria are all such that you can judge based just on reading the article. (Except for copyvios, I suppose, you have to read the thing it was allegedly copied from too.) For example, an A7 deletion doesn't require you to determine notability, it just requires you to see if the article makes any assertions about notability, which is quite easy and doesn't require any research.
Out of 10 CSDs I probably delete 6 or 7, remove the tag from 1 or 2 and leave the rest for another admin because I'm not sure (that's the good thing about a wiki - you can just move on and let someone else deal with it if you aren't sure what to do). The tags that I remove are generally A7's that probably aren't notable but do make assertions of notability and should probably be PRODed rather than speedied (I don't generally add the PROD tag, since that would require research and I don't want to take the time required to do that properly).
G'day Chris,
Gallagher Mark George wrote:
To be fair, it's not exactly poor judgment from admins --- well, it is, but not entirely. In my experience dealing with speedies, the vast majority of improper speedies are articles that some CVUer incorrectly tagged and the admin just speedied without looking, trusting the CVUer's judgment. Where an admin commits an improper speedy off his own bat, it's usually something along the lines of he judged that he didn't need to follow process in this case. Incompetence vs IAR, in other words.
I usually do a fair bit of research before speedying anything. Google it, look at the page history, etc. I delete far more than I remove tags -- in fact I rarely remove tags, unless the cited CSD clearly doesn't apply.
You should *always* look at the page history, "what links here", and the talkpage, to see if the speedy tag was added as a result of vandalism, is vandalism itself, or is simply a silly dispute (e.g. the fan of a rock band angry that an article about another rock band by the same name exists on Wikipedia).
Why? Because sometimes I half-agree with the tag, but don't think that the cited CSD is fully met by the article. Maybe in spirit but not in letter. So I just leave the article as it is, hoping another admin can come to a decision.
The fact is that C:CSD is full of BS pretty much all the time. Any admin will tell you that clearing out CSD is pretty much hell. For some reason this is not the case with WP:AIV. There's usually a small backlog there, but it's a lot more fun to clean up, probably because there are fewer entries. But I digress.
I know very well what CAT:CSD is like, thank you. As I hinted in my other posts on the topic, a great deal of my work as an admin (as opposed to a concerned wikicitizen or whatever) was clearing out CSD backlogs. Much of CAT:CSD is utter crap, but not nearly as much as should be. The category *should be* "full of BS pretty much all the time". If it's got worthwhile, or at the very least non-speediable, articles contained, then someone, somewhere, is fucking up badly. And admins who delete such articles instead of removing the tag (maybe rebuking the CVUer who tagged it if a repeat offender) are doing the 'pedia a disservice.
I don't think I ever left an article alone because I didn't want to be the one to make the decision to delete/not delete. I *did* do this sometimes for articles that would have been too much work to deal with (e.g. copyvios with a note on the talkpage saying "I give permission for it to be used"), not because I was afraid of taking responsibility (not that there's anything wrong with that; as Tom said, someone else will happily pick up the slack), but because I had 200 more tagged articles to get through and I didn't want to waste half an hour checking the veracity of the user's assertion.
But when it came to a simple case of "is this speediable?", the way was clear. As David Gerard and Tony Sideway have said (I paraphrase here): "If it's crap, kill it. If it's not crap, don't." Towards the end of my time as a regular editor (and hence, admin), at least half the articles tagged were either good in themselves, or easily salvageable with thirty seconds' work. The other half I deleted.
I didn't agonise over, "is this technically a CSD?" --- if it obviously wasn't, then I removed the tag with a note in the page history. If it was borderline but the article didn't suck completely, I'd remove the tag and say "take it to AfD". If the article sucked, whether it met CSD exactly or not, bang it went. Anyone who spotted a problem was free to ask me to review, or ask another admin the same, or take it to DRV (Tony Sideway, as I recall, got me to undelete a couple of articles where I'd acted too hastily), but these were quite rare, especially compared to some of my more modern colleagues.
Of course, once I became comfortable with Wikipedia, my philosophy became: "Do what seems Right, take a stand. If you're wrong, then admit it and back down. If you're right, keep on truckin'." This is not something that everyone will, or should, follow comfortably.
The fact is that admins clearing C:CSD are going to be more willing to push the button than remove the tag, because, well, pushing the button is less effort, and I would speculate (with no evidence at all) that the majority of CSD patrollers are deletionist, myself included. I like to think that I have a clue, but sometimes I can't bring myself to push the button or remove the tag. I know it's drivel but we don't have a CSD for drivel that looks like it might make a shred of sense.
Pushing the button (delete the page, enter deletion reason, remove redlinks, remove talkpage) is less effort than removing the tag (remove tag, note talkpage if necessary)?
And deciding to abstain from admin action is not evidence of cluelessness: it's quite appropriate, even praiseworthy, behaviour. If you can't make up your mind, feel free to pass on this one. It's when you're out of your depth but act anyway that people get irritated, and quite rightly, too.
<snip />
Many admins told me before my self-nom that admin work was mostly thankless grunt work. In my limited experience, C:CSD is exactly what they were referring to. You spend hours there to get almost nothing done, then get pissed on by both the authors and taggers of the articles you touched.
Oh, yes. In my experience, the taggers were more abusive than the authors: "Excuse me, sir, why wasn't my article accepted on Wikipedia?" vs "Hey fuckwit, I'm a career vandal fighter, and you're not doing your job properly!"
The major source of stress when emptying CAT:CSD came from taggers, not authors. The authors might be vandals, in which case they can be easily blocked; or drive-by, in which case they never even notice; or genuinely upset people who don't know what was wrong with their article, in which case I'm happy to explain; or genuinely upset people whose article I deleted mistakenly, in which case I'm happy to undo and apologise.
Taggers, on the other hand, tended to be fairly self-righteous. "I'm a vandal-whacker, me! And you're standing in the way of my whacking. Move aside, peasant!" (I mean, of course, those who incorrectly tag worthwhile articles; I rarely correspond, for obvious reasons, with those who tag crap and get it deleted).
Some admins may be reckless, but the majority are trying to sort the wheat from the chaff and make the occasional slip-up. The more articles an admin deals with in this context the more mistakes he or she will make. I'm not saying they should be given a free pass, but a little respect for all the BS they have to put up with wouldn't hurt.
Yeah, ah, *no*. I was an admin. If I get the time and inclination, I may apply to be one again. I've seen first-hand the BS. I've seen first-hand how much of the BS is part of the job (several metric truckloads), and how much is the result of simple incompetence (more than you'd think).
It wouldn't be accurate to say that there is a Right Way and a Wrong Way to be an administrator. There are several Right Ways, several Wrong Ways, and it's not fair to criticise someone for following your (or my) particular favourite Right Way. That said, an admin who chooses one of the Wrong Ways is in for a bollocking, and anyone who stands up and shouts, "Get a fucking clue!" before it gets any worse is doing him a favour. He should realise this and adjust his behaviour accordingly, and not complain about the "BS" that bad admins cop, because baby, they've earned it.
But where's the line between pointing out bad behaviours (good), criticising good but ideologically incorrect behaviours (bad), and mindless abuse (very bad)? If I knew that, you'd have to start calling me "Jimbo".
Cheers,
On 13/05/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Yeah, ah, *no*. I was an admin. If I get the time and inclination, I may apply to be one again.
If you just quit without controversy, you can just ask for it back.
- d.
G'day David,
On 13/05/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Yeah, ah, *no*. I was an admin. If I get the time and inclination, I may apply to be one again.
If you just quit without controversy, you can just ask for it back.
Really? Hmm.
I won't be asking any time soon anyway, since I still don't have the time to be a good admin, and if I can't be a good admin[0], it's not worth it.
And it's an intriguing thought: if I went through RfA again, would I fail for only having 9000 edits?
[0] Or at least what I think is a good admin. YMMV.
And it's an intriguing thought: if I went through RfA again, would I fail for only having 9000 edits?
According to Durin's stats, once you reach about 3000 edits (used to be 2000, go figure) edit count becomes unimportant. Of course, it you don't have sufficient portal talk edits, then there's nothing I can do to help you.