From time to time, I come across complaints about the "admin subculture" at
Wikipedia, and there are times when I've been struck by the fact that while som/most admins make a sincere effort at applying policy, guidelines and their judgment consistently, others seem to have absolutely no difficulty abandoning any semblance of fairness if other considerations are more weighty.
People who raise the issue in this forum are typically frustrated - they are told that either being an admin is "no big deal," or that "the system works pretty well," or "stop being a malcontent," all in so many words.
At the same time, there is an ongoing debate about the various trends (userboxes, lawsuits, editors with inferior intellects) that threaten the existence of Wikipedia.
I have my own opinion about what threatens Wikipedia most (a decay of intellectual integrity for the sake of conventional wisdom, SPOV, and appeals to authority that in turn breed slovenly thinking), but I really do want to weigh in on an appeal that the admin community - whether it is a subculture or not - give some serious thought to how the reinforce accountability around the WP core standards.
Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not, because admins have it in their power to do really really annoying things to editors. Aside from 24-hour blocks, locking articles in various ways, closing discussions on AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of immunity against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell, a presumption that anyone who complains about an admin is a bit of a narcissist or troublemaker. There are also constant allegations that some admins are softer on people whose POV align with theirs, etc.
I think that the open source philosophy should be preserved, so I'm reluctant to add more rules and processes than absolutely necessary. However, I do think that some principles should apply, whether they are instituted formally or not:
* Admins should be able to defend their actions in light of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or accepted practice. In other words, if an editor protests a decision made by an admin, it should be incumbent upon (and easy for) the admin to point to a clear precedence for his/her decision. And these precedents should be developed by some level of consensus that at least meets the standard applied for everything else. * Admins should strive to be role models in their roles as editors. There will be people who are better suited as admins than editors, and we all have content issues we're passionate about; but I believe there is plenty of room within policy and guidelines to expresss passion without being uncivil, dishonest, flip, or offensive. * Admins should strive for transparency in their workings. Backchannel communications should be an exception limited to very specific problems.
I could think of more, but this is plenty for now.
Leif
"Leif Knutsen" wrote
- Admins should strive for transparency in their workings. Backchannel
communications should be an exception limited to very specific problems.
That at least is not really practical. There is constant need to share information, that should not be posted on the Wikipedia sites. (Think about it - so we really want discussions of users by admins, including necessary detective work, on the site?).
Charles
True, but there are many types of openness -- backchannels are fine so long as they are not appealed to as the basis of any particular decision. Any logic worked out in a backchannel should be publicly re-posted and open for discussion in some sort of santized form. One can also alert to the presence of backchannel discussions (i.e. "Jimbo and were having a discussion the other day...") without actually making everyone privvy to them.
Transparency and lack of privacy are not the same thing, is all I am saying.
FF
On 2/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Leif Knutsen" wrote
- Admins should strive for transparency in their workings. Backchannel
communications should be an exception limited to very specific problems.
That at least is not really practical. There is constant need to share information, that should not be posted on the Wikipedia sites. (Think about it - so we really want discussions of users by admins, including necessary detective work, on the site?).
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Defenses of backchannel discussions seem to me to always be rather weak, especially considering the gross potential for abuse and the lessons of history.
Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. There should be more people with admin rights.
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. There should be more people with admin rights.
"rights"? Shouldn't that be technical abilities? -- geni
On 2/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
"rights"? Shouldn't that be technical abilities?
Rights in terms of the software == technical abilities.
-- Sam
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Defenses of backchannel discussions seem to me to always be rather weak, especially considering the gross potential for abuse and the lessons of history.
There is far too much unjustified suspicion about this. One administrator recently started deleting copyright infringing copies of Time magazine covers, an action for which he received the full authorization of Jimbo Wales. He was RfC'd! When finally he obtained from Jimbo permission to reproduce the email (which I also received) the response was to openly question his honesty, and demand that he prove that the email (which carried Jimbo's email address, that of the recipient, and my own name, and was posted openly on the wiki with Jimbo's permission) came from Jimbo.
That kind of corrosive supiciousness is the problem. For the most part our administrators, those who are involved in backchannel operations, are the best and the most trustworthy we have.
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Defenses of backchannel discussions seem to me to always be rather weak, especially considering the gross potential for abuse and the lessons of history.
There is far too much unjustified suspicion about this. One administrator recently started deleting copyright infringing copies of Time magazine covers, an action for which he received the full authorization of Jimbo Wales. He was RfC'd! When finally he obtained from Jimbo permission to reproduce the email (which I also received) the response was to openly question his honesty, and demand that he prove that the email (which carried Jimbo's email address, that of the recipient, and my own name, and was posted openly on the wiki with Jimbo's permission) came from Jimbo.
That kind of corrosive supiciousness is the problem. For the most part our administrators, those who are involved in backchannel operations, are the best and the most trustworthy we have.
I'd say that the suspiciousness wasn't the problem, but the backchannel authorization. The admin was doing something that antagonized a lot of other editors' sensibilities, and rightly was held to account. Deleting images is a Big Deal because it's permanently destructive.
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say that the suspiciousness wasn't the problem, but the backchannel authorization. The admin was doing something that antagonized a lot of other editors' sensibilities, and rightly was held to account. Deleting images is a Big Deal because it's permanently destructive.
Those images were not ours to keep. Why is this so difficult to understand?
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say that the suspiciousness wasn't the problem, but the backchannel authorization. The admin was doing something that antagonized a lot of other editors' sensibilities, and rightly was held to account. Deleting images is a Big Deal because it's permanently destructive.
Those images were not ours to keep. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Not difficult for me to understand, but a) never assume what's obvious to you is obvious to others (but do trust it's explainable), b) people aren't fully rational beings, c) people are *always* going to be upset when their work is undone, no matter the reason, d) having a good reason for doing something doesn't mean you don't have to provide it.
It's much like the new verifiability policy: just because something is verifiable isn't sufficient, there needs to be a source as well.
Oh yeah, and e) copyright law as it currently stands sucks major eggs.
That kind of corrosive supiciousness is the problem. For the most part our administrators, those who are involved in backchannel operations, are the best and the most trustworthy we have.
This is basically right, because the people who actually want to get stuff done don't want to go through the trouble of haggling with process fetishists and the 10% of people who oppose everything. Trying to convince everyone that a particular action is right is a waste of time. No matter what you do, there will always be someone who thinks you should have done the opposite. Back-channels are the only way to get input from only rational people, and cut out the trolls and so on.
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say that the suspiciousness wasn't the problem, but the backchannel authorization. The admin was doing something that antagonized a lot of other editors' sensibilities, and rightly was held to account. Deleting images is a Big Deal because it's permanently destructive.
If deleting copyvios with an OK from Jimbo "antagonized a lot of other editors' sensibilities", I can't be bothered to care. These people will be offended by anything. If someone has a rational reason to object, I'll be more inclined to say that we should talk it out.
Ryan
On 3/1/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
That kind of corrosive supiciousness is the problem. For the most part our administrators, those who are involved in backchannel operations, are the best and the most trustworthy we have.
This is basically right, because the people who actually want to get stuff done don't want to go through the trouble of haggling with process fetishists and the 10% of people who oppose everything. Trying to convince everyone that a particular action is right is a waste of time. No matter what you do, there will always be someone who thinks you should have done the opposite. Back-channels are the only way to get input from only rational people, and cut out the trolls and so on.
Generaly I just ignore trolls and so on
If deleting copyvios with an OK from Jimbo "antagonized a lot of other editors' sensibilities", I can't be bothered to care. These people will be offended by anything. If someone has a rational reason to object, I'll be more inclined to say that we should talk it out.
Ryan
It is still polite to let people know what you are going to do in advance.
-- geni
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Delaney
That kind of corrosive supiciousness is the problem. For
the most
part our administrators, those who are involved in backchannel operations, are the best and the most trustworthy we have.
This is basically right, because the people who actually want to get stuff done don't want to go through the trouble of haggling with process fetishists and the 10% of people who oppose everything. Trying to convince everyone that a particular action is right is a waste of time. No matter what you do, there will always be someone who thinks you should have done the opposite. Back-channels are the only way to get input from only rational people, and cut out the trolls and so on.
We've been through this before with the notion of an admin-only mailing list.
Input from trolls and otherwise isn't important and may usually be safely disregarded. For the most part, they are NOT admins and although they might SAY something, they will not be able to DO anything. In the case of an admin-only discussion area, they could not even say anything.
But it is important that admin actions and decisions be as open and honest as possible, so that all members of the community may be sure that administrative actions are not dependent on flawed or incomplete or malicious inputs.
Two analogies spring to mind, neither completely apposite, but good enough. Although proceedings in chambers, in a closed courtroom, or in the jury room are not open to the public, the bulk of the judicial process is transparent and the public may be satisfied that it isn't just a bunch of lawyers in private nutting out a solution to suit themselves or acting on a whim or whatever. Likewise, although discussion in caucus or cabinet is private, debate and voting is conducted in open Parliament, so that voters may see for themselves how their representatives act.
In neither case do members of the general public get an input except in limited and controlled circumstances. Statements from the gallery have no effect and are not recorded in evidence.
Peter (Skyring)
There is far too much unjustified suspicion about this. One administrator recently started deleting copyright infringing copies of Time magazine covers, an action for which he received the full authorization of Jimbo Wales. He was RfC'd! When finally he obtained from Jimbo permission to reproduce the email (which I also received) the response was to openly question his honesty, and demand that he prove that the email (which carried Jimbo's email address, that of the recipient, and my own name, and was posted openly on the wiki with Jimbo's permission) came from Jimbo.
Tony: Sorry guys! Queen Elizabeth gave me permission to tear down Buckingham Palace. Nothing you can do about it, nye ney! Tony: Evidence? What you mean I need evidence for? She emailed me and said I could. Tony: No I can't show it to you. She hasn't given me permission to show you the email yet. You trust me don't you? Tony: No I can't wait! Time is expensive and I have better things to do than argue with rules layers. I want this place cleared before tea-time.
-- mvh Björn
On 2/28/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
There is far too much unjustified suspicion about this. One administrator recently started deleting copyright infringing copies of Time magazine covers, an action for which he received the full authorization of Jimbo Wales. He was RfC'd! When finally he obtained from Jimbo permission to reproduce the email (which I also received) the response was to openly question his honesty, and demand that he prove that the email (which carried Jimbo's email address, that of the recipient, and my own name, and was posted openly on the wiki with Jimbo's permission) came from Jimbo.
Tony: Sorry guys! Queen Elizabeth gave me permission to tear down Buckingham Palace. Nothing you can do about it, nye ney! Tony: Evidence? What you mean I need evidence for? She emailed me and said I could. Tony: No I can't show it to you. She hasn't given me permission to show you the email yet. You trust me don't you? Tony: No I can't wait! Time is expensive and I have better things to do than argue with rules layers. I want this place cleared before tea-time.
Mr. Prosser said, "You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time, you know." "Appropriate time?" hooted Arthur. "Appropriate time? The first I knew about it was when a workman arrived at my home yesterday. I asked him if he'd come to clean the windows and he said no, he'd come to demolish the house. He didn't tell me straight away of course. Oh no. First he wiped a couple of windows and charged me a fiver. Then he told me." "But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months." "Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything." "But the plans were on display..." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a flashlight." "Ah, well, the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'"
On 3/1/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
There is far too much unjustified suspicion about this. One administrator recently started deleting copyright infringing copies of Time magazine covers, an action for which he received the full authorization of Jimbo Wales. He was RfC'd! When finally he obtained from Jimbo permission to reproduce the email (which I also received) the response was to openly question his honesty, and demand that he prove that the email (which carried Jimbo's email address, that of the recipient, and my own name, and was posted openly on the wiki with Jimbo's permission) came from Jimbo.
Tony: Sorry guys! Queen Elizabeth gave me permission to tear down Buckingham Palace. Nothing you can do about it, nye ney! Tony: Evidence? What you mean I need evidence for? She emailed me and said I could. Tony: No I can't show it to you. She hasn't given me permission to show you the email yet. You trust me don't you? Tony: No I can't wait! Time is expensive and I have better things to do than argue with rules layers. I want this place cleared before tea-time.
Why do you make blatantly false accusations of lying against other editors?
This shocks me more than I can say.
I don't think there was an accusation of lying. One can be "wrong" and "evasive" and "not cooperative" and "not respectful of other editors" and "avoiding accountability" without being a "liar" at all.
Personally, I never doubted that SOME e-mail existed (why lie about it?), but I did doubt that the contents were exactly what they were being portrayed as being (it didn't seem like a very Jimbo way of doing things -- to tell someone in private to go ahead and start deleting things without process). And in the end, I was right about that. Again, I don't think the admin in question was lying, but I do think he was wrong, in the sense of "incorrect."
FF
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
There is far too much unjustified suspicion about this. One administrator recently started deleting copyright infringing copies of Time magazine covers, an action for which he received the full authorization of Jimbo Wales. He was RfC'd! When finally he obtained from Jimbo permission to reproduce the email (which I also received) the response was to openly question his honesty, and demand that he prove that the email (which carried Jimbo's email address, that of the recipient, and my own name, and was posted openly on the wiki with Jimbo's permission) came from Jimbo.
Tony: Sorry guys! Queen Elizabeth gave me permission to tear down Buckingham Palace. Nothing you can do about it, nye ney! Tony: Evidence? What you mean I need evidence for? She emailed me and said I could. Tony: No I can't show it to you. She hasn't given me permission to show you the email yet. You trust me don't you? Tony: No I can't wait! Time is expensive and I have better things to do than argue with rules layers. I want this place cleared before tea-time.
Why do you make blatantly false accusations of lying against other editors?
This shocks me more than I can say. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there was an accusation of lying. One can be "wrong" and "evasive" and "not cooperative" and "not respectful of other editors" and "avoiding accountability" without being a "liar" at all.
So you think you were accusing me, not of lying, but of being evasive, uncooperative, disrespectful and avoiding accountability.
But the words you used were "I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue"
But you are not aware of the facts. I am, and I'm telling you to stop falsely accusing other editors of lying. Moreover, when caught doing so, I am saying that you must not falsely accuse them of avoiding accountability, being evasive, uncooperative and disrespectful. And any other smokescreen you want to come up with. Just stop.
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there was an accusation of lying. One can be "wrong" and "evasive" and "not cooperative" and "not respectful of other editors" and "avoiding accountability" without being a "liar" at all.
So you think you were accusing me, not of lying, but of being evasive, uncooperative, disrespectful and avoiding accountability.
But the words you used were "I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue"
But you are not aware of the facts. I am, and I'm telling you to stop falsely accusing other editors of lying. Moreover, when caught doing so, I am saying that you must not falsely accuse them of avoiding accountability, being evasive, uncooperative and disrespectful. And any other smokescreen you want to come up with. Just stop.
You still haven't responded to Fastfission's account. What dispute do you have with it?
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
You still haven't responded to Fastfission's account. What dispute do you have with it?
Its false portrayal of ta bu shi da yu as acting without direct and full support, its accusatory tone, its abuse of a good and conscientious administrator who came directly to Jimbo for support and obtained it (I know this for a fact), it's blatant assumption, in short, of bad faith. Its sheer unwikipedianness. I'm completely, utterly shocked rigid to see this kind of thing openly on a wikipedia mailing list. When I spoke of corrosive suspicion, this is precisely what I meant. We cannot build an encyclopedia this way. Well, maybe a huge hoard of copyright infringements, but *not* an encyclopedia.
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
You still haven't responded to Fastfission's account. What dispute do you have with it?
Its false portrayal of ta bu shi da yu as acting without direct and full support, its accusatory tone, its abuse of a good and conscientious administrator who came directly to Jimbo for support and obtained it (I know this for a fact), it's blatant assumption, in short, of bad faith. Its sheer unwikipedianness. I'm completely, utterly shocked rigid to see this kind of thing openly on a wikipedia mailing list. When I spoke of corrosive suspicion, this is precisely what I meant. We cannot build an encyclopedia this way. Well, maybe a huge hoard of copyright infringements, but *not* an encyclopedia.
No, not what issues with the tone do you have, but what dispute with the facts of Fastfission's account?
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, not what issues with the tone do you have, but what dispute with the facts of Fastfission's account?
The facts that he omits.
I don't think you're reading your e-mails very closely. You're not even the subject of the one below.
And I think I was aware of the facts, and you certainly have given me no reason to think otherwise, nor that you have any real interest in the facts. You're the one throwing up a big hissyfit about being offended for it being implied that you are wrong, rather than simply stating where it is that you are not. It's really pretty shameful and I'm surprised at you.
FF
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there was an accusation of lying. One can be "wrong" and "evasive" and "not cooperative" and "not respectful of other editors" and "avoiding accountability" without being a "liar" at all.
So you think you were accusing me, not of lying, but of being evasive, uncooperative, disrespectful and avoiding accountability.
But the words you used were "I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue"
But you are not aware of the facts. I am, and I'm telling you to stop falsely accusing other editors of lying. Moreover, when caught doing so, I am saying that you must not falsely accuse them of avoiding accountability, being evasive, uncooperative and disrespectful. And any other smokescreen you want to come up with. Just stop. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue:
1. An admin decided to start speedying properly tagged images, as copyvios. There are no CSD provisions for speedying copyvio images. 2. In accounting for his actions, when asked by a number of people, the admin said that his personal interpretation of the fair use law (and note that he pointed people to the page about the law, not our fair use policy) was that these were copyvios and put Wikipedia at risk. (Sound grounds and good intentions for discussing policy change, but not throwing it to the wind.) 3. After some more people started wondering where he was getting the authority to skip out on our copyvio procedures, he tells them to take it up with Jimbo or the WMF. (Note that a board member of the WMF soon said that they were indeed NOT the place to take it up with.) He then alludes to a secret e-mail from Jimbo where he was given authority for deleting any TIME magazine images he wanted without question. 4. Finally, the admin produces the "backchannel" e-mail. And guess what? It said that the images should probably be AfDed, and that if it didn't pass AfD then *Jimbo* might speedy them himself. So it didn't quite give the admin the authority to speedy them himself in the slightest. Nevertheless, the admin told everyone else to eat their words in suggesting he was acting out of policy, and claims that this validates everything he had done.
And in the meantime lots of admins pat him on the back, say "Good job, old sport, for ignoring the system!" and all sorts of other things which miss more points than I dare express.
I'm involved with this, I won't claim neutrality. If the admin in question had at least tried to go through normal channels first, at least tried to suggest policy changes, I'd have been more sympathetic. It makes a mockery of efforts to come up with sound policy if one admin can decide, without consulting anyone publicly, to go on an anti-policy crusade, flagrantly violating our deletion policy and telling anyone who questions him to shove off, and then get congratulatory pats on the back.
And, as I stated about a million times (and got the same curt replies from everyone despite this), all of my truck with this has been about the *way* it was done. If we want to decide that magazine covers from TIME are not acceptable under a proper fair use policy at Wikipedia, that's fine by me, I'd have helped tag and bag them. But being told to shove off, implicitly and explicitly, because I questioned the actions of this "bold" admin -- that's a bit much. We could have had a nice discussion about this out in the open, and if Jimbo had wanted them gone, he knows as well as anyone else how to get that sort of thing accomplished. Backchannel conversation should NEVER be the primary source of justifying an action -- it should be moved into the public realm before it affects the public realm.
Frankly, I think I might be done trying to work on fair use policy on Wikipedia. Whether people think that's a good thing or a bad thing, I don't think anyone can say that I didn't at least try and keep every discussion, every rationale, and every change as open and publicly available and transparent as possible. My goal was to come up with an intelligent, legally thoughtful, and frankly workable approach to fair use on Wikipedia (and, long-time list readers will recall, that I originally started out by thinking that all fair use should be removed from Wikipedia; once it was clear that this was the path to go, I devoted my efforts to figuring out how to make our policy a sane one), and think some good steps towards that were accomplished. But if people can be so supportive of efforts to circumvent such policy, without so much as discussions of changing it, then apparently my efforts are better spent elsewhere.
Vigilantism masquerading as boldness is, I think, ultimately destructive to the goal of producing strong social networks of dedicated and interested contributors. But I don't claim to be an expert at this (I'm a historian, not a sociologist).
FF
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Defenses of backchannel discussions seem to me to always be rather weak, especially considering the gross potential for abuse and the lessons of history.
There is far too much unjustified suspicion about this. One administrator recently started deleting copyright infringing copies of Time magazine covers, an action for which he received the full authorization of Jimbo Wales. He was RfC'd! When finally he obtained from Jimbo permission to reproduce the email (which I also received) the response was to openly question his honesty, and demand that he prove that the email (which carried Jimbo's email address, that of the recipient, and my own name, and was posted openly on the wiki with Jimbo's permission) came from Jimbo.
That kind of corrosive supiciousness is the problem. For the most part our administrators, those who are involved in backchannel operations, are the best and the most trustworthy we have. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue:
No. I have told you the complete and unvarnished truth. Do not dare to accuse me of lying. Do not dare.
My apologies, but I suggested only that you had "stretched" things a bit, though I did not, and do not, intend to posit dishonesty or maliciousness as the motivation. I'm a firm believer that one sees what they want to see at times, and you saw this case as "decisive action" where I think it should be better described as "hasty and in definite violation of policy and spirit." Perhaps the most articulate wording would have been, "I fear your perception has stretched things a bit," but anyway I think we do not need to discuss the pedantic points of it, since I think it should be clear by now what I meant. I've accused nobody of lying, implicitly or explicitly.
And I think I've well described my take on things. And remember that it was you -- and not I -- who brought it up here as an example in relation to "backchannel" dealings.
FF
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue:
No. I have told you the complete and unvarnished truth. Do not dare to accuse me of lying. Do not dare. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies, but I suggested only that you had "stretched" things a bit
Well stop it. This is completely unacceptable. I did not stretch anything. Not even a tiny little bit. I did not lie, misrepresent, equivocate, deceive, stretch, or anything else.
I'd like to hope, in good faith, that this is a self-reflexive criticism meant to be taken lightly. But I doubt it is, because if it was, it would hopefully provoke some additional thoughts qualifying your unilateral defense of this case. So I feel that it can be only taken literally, which confuses me. But hopefully I'm wrong, and you'll say, "Gosh, of course I would never earnestly imply that you saying that you thought I was wrong, and explaining why, was completely unacceptable!"
FF
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies, but I suggested only that you had "stretched" things a bit
Well stop it. This is completely unacceptable. I did not stretch anything. Not even a tiny little bit. I did not lie, misrepresent, equivocate, deceive, stretch, or anything else. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies, but I suggested only that you had "stretched" things a bit
Well stop it. This is completely unacceptable. I did not stretch anything. Not even a tiny little bit. I did not lie, misrepresent, equivocate, deceive, stretch, or anything else.
Do you admit the possibility of fallibility?
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies, but I suggested only that you had "stretched" things a bit
Well stop it. This is completely unacceptable. I did not stretch anything. Not even a tiny little bit. I did not lie, misrepresent, equivocate, deceive, stretch, or anything else.
Do you admit the possibility of fallibility?
Absolutely. But the accusation was of deception.
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue:
No. I have told you the complete and unvarnished truth. Do not dare to accuse me of lying. Do not dare.
The "complete and unvarnished truth"? Whew. Ever see [[Rashomon]]?
What in Fastfission's retelling do you consider inaccurate?
Let's not make this personal, eh?
On Feb 28, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue:
No. I have told you the complete and unvarnished truth. Do not dare to accuse me of lying. Do not dare.
Don't make Tony Sidaway angry. You wouldn't like Tony Sidaway when he's angry...
TONY SMASH!
Philip Welch wrote:
On Feb 28, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're stretching things a bit here about the facts in relation to the TIME magazine issue:
No. I have told you the complete and unvarnished truth. Do not dare to accuse me of lying. Do not dare.
Don't make Tony Sidaway angry. You wouldn't like Tony Sidaway when he's angry...
TONY SMASH!
Or worse, a dev will run nukeUser.php and all records that you ever existed will be wiped from the database...
On Feb 28, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Or worse, a dev will run nukeUser.php and all records that you ever existed will be wiped from the database...
Wouldn't that be a gross violation of GFDL?
Philip Welch wrote:
On Feb 28, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Or worse, a dev will run nukeUser.php and all records that you ever existed will be wiped from the database...
Wouldn't that be a gross violation of GFDL?
See why you don't want to make Tony angry! :)
Fastfission wrote:
Frankly, I think I might be done trying to work on fair use policy on Wikipedia. Whether people think that's a good thing or a bad thing, I don't think anyone can say that I didn't at least try and keep every discussion, every rationale, and every change as open and publicly available and transparent as possible. My goal was to come up with an intelligent, legally thoughtful, and frankly workable approach to fair use on Wikipedia (and, long-time list readers will recall, that I originally started out by thinking that all fair use should be removed from Wikipedia; once it was clear that this was the path to go, I devoted my efforts to figuring out how to make our policy a sane one), and think some good steps towards that were accomplished. But if people can be so supportive of efforts to circumvent such policy, without so much as discussions of changing it, then apparently my efforts are better spent elsewhere.
I've certainly appreciated your efforts to work out ways to take a more serious approach to fair use. I think it's unfortunate that some have turned it into a jihad where the images are a problem that has to be solved Right Now in whatever way first comes to mind. The TIME case is especially comical in that the copyright holder has even been contacted about our "flagrant theft of their property!", and their official response is rather less histrionic than some of our admins on the subject - one even gets the impression that TIME wouldn't mind much if every WP article included a relevant cover (hey, cheapest ad space in the world :-) ).
I think Jimbo may have to take a little heat, in adopting an ambiguous position. On the one hand, he abjures us to believe in eventualism, assume good faith, practice wikilove, etc, then turns around and makes blanket statements about killing all fair use images, which are then taken by frustrated admins as license to shoot wildly in all directions. If we've adopted a goal of limiting fair use, and really believe in our community's ability to develop good process, then we *will* get there.
In case anyone has forgotten, image handling has improved radically; three years ago it was atypical for an upload to have any source or copyright info at all, and now only a couple percent of our half-million images remain undescribed, with the forecast predicting the remainder to be fixed up within the next couple of months.
Three years from now, I expect that all the upset over fair use will be something that only the oldtimers remember.
Stan
I thank you for this statement of what happened. Barring substantive rebuttals of the facts you lay out, I find that I agree with you that, while the goal was good, this was not rightly done. I apologize for having supported it without realizing this. I still think ta bu was acting in good faith, and doing what he felt was the best and only course, but I now see that this was not correct; an annoucment - "I believe that Wikipedia's use of TIME covers is invalid fair use for the following reasons.", a week or so of time for comments, discussion (either via an IfD, or simply as a freeform discussion), asking Jimbo on eis talk page, rather than by email, *then* deleting the images, would have been the right path to take.
Jesse Weinstein
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:45 PM, Fastfission wrote:
- An admin decided to start speedying properly tagged images, as
copyvios. There are no CSD provisions for speedying copyvio images. 2. In accounting for his actions, when asked by a number of people, the admin said that his personal interpretation of the fair use law (and note that he pointed people to the page about the law, not our fair use policy) was that these were copyvios and put Wikipedia at risk. (Sound grounds and good intentions for discussing policy change, but not throwing it to the wind.) 3. After some more people started wondering where he was getting the authority to skip out on our copyvio procedures, he tells them to take it up with Jimbo or the WMF. (Note that a board member of the WMF soon said that they were indeed NOT the place to take it up with.) He then alludes to a secret e-mail from Jimbo where he was given authority for deleting any TIME magazine images he wanted without question. 4. Finally, the admin produces the "backchannel" e-mail. And guess what? It said that the images should probably be AfDed, and that if it didn't pass AfD then *Jimbo* might speedy them himself. So it didn't quite give the admin the authority to speedy them himself in the slightest. Nevertheless, the admin told everyone else to eat their words in suggesting he was acting out of policy, and claims that this validates everything he had done.
The Cunctator wrote:
Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. There should be more people with admin rights.
On Wikipedia you have exactly *TWO* rights:
1. The right to leave. 2. The right to fork.
Editing Wikipedia is privilege which we extend to all who do not abuse it. Once you abuse the editing privilege, you are no longer entitled to edit.
The same applies to administrative privileges.
On 3/1/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. There should be more people with admin rights.
On Wikipedia you have exactly *TWO* rights:
- The right to leave.
- The right to fork.
Editing Wikipedia is privilege which we extend to all who do not abuse it. Once you abuse the editing privilege, you are no longer entitled to edit.
Okay, SORRY for using the word "rights".
Gosh, I love sysadminthink.
On 2/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Leif Knutsen" wrote
- Admins should strive for transparency in their workings. Backchannel
communications should be an exception limited to very specific problems.
That at least is not really practical. There is constant need to share information, that should not be posted on the Wikipedia sites. (Think about it - so we really want discussions of users by admins, including necessary detective work, on the site?).
Charles
The amount is pretty limited. An awful lot of our detective work is done onsite. I can think of maybe one case where I needed to disscuss something without it isntantly being public.
-- geni
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of charles matthews
"Leif Knutsen" wrote
- Admins should strive for transparency in their workings.
Backchannel
communications should be an exception limited to very
specific problems.
That at least is not really practical. There is constant need to share information, that should not be posted on the Wikipedia sites. (Think about it - so we really want discussions of users by admins, including necessary detective work, on the site?).
Because the alternative is that admins are seen as arbitrary and callous by the general community of editors. Nothing is quite so poisonous as a group of privileged people telling the population "We had good reasons for doing what we did, but we can't tell you what they are."
The reaction after hearing that line two or three times is pure cynicism.
Now, I'll exempt privacy issues from any need to be open, and I think Wikipedia has a pretty good handle on that, but the sort of thing that builds trust and confidence is what we usually see on WP:ANI where issues get investigated, links and diffs are posted, and a complete picture emerges.
Peter (Skyring)
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Leif Knutsen Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not, because admins have it in their power to do really really annoying things to editors. Aside from 24-hour blocks, locking articles in various ways, closing discussions on AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of immunity against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell, a presumption that anyone who complains about an admin is a bit of a narcissist or troublemaker. There are also constant allegations that some admins are softer on people whose POV align with theirs, etc.
Hear hear!
There are some admins who shouldn't be. They got there because they are good editors, not because they are good at being admins. When an admin uses his powers to win edit wars and harass those with whom he disagrees, it's time to reassess that editor's role in the project.
Having said that, one must also consider the question - what is the highest priority? Building an encyclopaedia or having a good working community of editors?
Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Leif Knutsen Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not, because admins have it in their power to do really really annoying things to editors. Aside from 24-hour blocks, locking articles in various ways, closing discussions on AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of immunity against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell, a presumption that anyone who complains about an admin is a bit of a narcissist or troublemaker. There are also constant allegations that some admins are softer on people whose POV align with theirs, etc.
Hear hear!
There are some admins who shouldn't be. They got there because they are good editors, not because they are good at being admins. When an admin uses his powers to win edit wars and harass those with whom he disagrees, it's time to reassess that editor's role in the project.
I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.
Having said that, one must also consider the question - what is the highest priority? Building an encyclopaedia or having a good working community of editors?
Since the encyclopedia is still being written by humans, having a good working community of editors is a neccessary evil. Remember, Wikipedia is a project with a community, not the other way around.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia email)
I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.
I think because it's too much like hard work. Remember when there was all that hoo-har about neo-Nazis banding together to try to take over WP? Jimbo said that this wouldn't happen, because in the end WP was an encyclopaedia not a game.
It didn't happen anyway, but a few folks here ran round like headless chooks for a while, and when the neoNazis started up their own fork, a few people went over and vandalised the crap out of it, and then came back here and gloated.
Anyway, if we get a bunch of genuine rogue admins acting in an organised manner, I think it would quickly be noticed and brought under control. It wouldn't be a matter of voting or wheel-warring. In the end Jimbo and his trusted assistants would squash the invasion and we'd be better off to the tune of many packets of three months anti-vandalism work.
Peter (Skyring)
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:46:43 +1030, you wrote:
I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.
Some people think it has :-) Guy (JzG)
On 3/1/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:46:43 +1030, you wrote:
I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.
Well, admins can't exactly trash the place. Developers, maybe.
Steve
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Leif Knutsen Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not, because admins have it in their power to do really really annoying things to editors. Aside from 24-hour blocks, locking articles in various ways, closing discussions on AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of immunity against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell, a presumption that anyone who complains about an admin is a bit of a narcissist or troublemaker. There are also constant allegations that some admins are softer on people whose POV align with theirs, etc.
Hear hear!
There are some admins who shouldn't be. They got there because they are good editors, not because they are good at being admins. When an admin uses his powers to win edit wars and harass those with whom he disagrees, it's time to reassess that editor's role in the project.
I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.
I something to say about that.
JzG replies in another email: "Some people think it has "
There was a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia 3RR. Some of it spilled over into my talk page. JzG was part of it and, among his complaints of me "gaming the system," he left this message about me: "Yes, wasting everyone's time. Including removing the part of [[Wikipedia:Revert]] which supports the content you want to remove from [[WP:3RR]]. Do it again and you ''will'' be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [JzG] 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)"
I didn't remove any content from Wikipedia:Revert, but that is what JzG claimed. That was also based on the time when Katefan0 dropped an e-mail here and claimed I edit-warred after an edit of the 3RR page. Every change made by a few editors was reverted.
I have yet to see on bit of attempt of genuine compromise on the issues the we have presented. However, it would be hard to fine. Without too much more detail of that issue, we do see there are admins, like JzG, that have crossed the line and harassed users, like me, of a block if one tries to edit.
The first question I raise about it is: did I vandalize the page? Absolutely not.
Did I try to revert war? I made 4 different distinct edits. (1) to add a comment about to use to the talk page conservatively after being reverted once, (2) I removed a piece on the Wikipedia:3RR that is clearly redundant and has caused problems with confusion over the 3RR. (That was "Revert in this context means..." which is also stated again later in the "Detail" section.) (3) to add the tag "Contradiction" because Wikipedia:revert clearly defined a revert one way but the 3RR page tries to redefine it with "Reverting is this context means..." (4) tried to add a tag "ActiveDiscuss" to advertise these issues that other editors and me see either as holes in the 3RR or as consfusion.
Each edit I made above was reverted. Very little, if any, explaination was given on the 3RR talk page. There was a lot of unproductive talk with other that accused us as "gaming the system," "edit warriors," and other things. Not that I won't, but I have yet to make another edit to Wikipedia:3RR to try to resolve where I found people to have issues with the text.
We don't have to fear of the day to come because it is hear. It happens. Just that the notion of "trash" is where the harassment is used to push a point or to get other editors not to be bold.
Personally, I feel it is utter childish for anybody to protect a page so dearly to even cast any form of harassment. Wikipedia is still under development. There are goals and plans already stated of where the software aims to go. For admins or other users to blow up over those that edit pages is really a horror.
I remember when I used to get onto LambdaMOO long time ago. There where lots of people that could logon and change things around. Some permissions existed to prevent total openness, but anybody could create objects and program them. There one user that really made the headlines. He decided to make an "experiment room." He invented people to his chat area on LambdaMoo. Once in the chat area, he had permissions to control objects in his area -- even the "characters" object. He had an object called "the jar." He would act like a clown and "stuff" people into the jar. Those that were submersed into the online context got a "probed" type of alien abduction experience. It's quite normal to get submersed into a book or movie, and this is interactive fiction -- or, at least, the story is but the reality of the text being display that effects the persons stimuli is FACT.
The clown guy eventually got kicked-out and a few investigations of online abduction in context took place. It's real.
This is what I see happen at Wikipedia. People are pretty drawn into the conversations that develop. Once some "action" is taken by an admin or ArbCom or such, the submersion leads to such "probed" and other undesired stimulation. Not everybody gets submersed by the context, but the fact is that it happens and we should take care. Even the little flame wars and such can have effects that trigger likewise behavoir of this clown stated above. It wasn't a funny clown, and this "trash" isn't either.
I haven't lost hope for Wikipedia. Even as popular as it has become, it's still under development. Most admins and other users I run into are very friendly.
I feel that sometimes the admins options have become a matter of convenience rather than a continued need to discuss issues. If this wasn't true, there would be no wheel wars.
People have different ways to edit articles. Instead of "suspicious admin behavior," we can specifically find that there are admins (as well as non-admins) that try to force people to edit in a particular style. We should have the freedom to choose our own style -- it's a wiki.
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Leif Knutsen Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not, because admins have it in their power to do really really annoying things to editors. Aside from 24-hour blocks, locking articles in various ways, closing discussions on AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of immunity against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell, a presumption that anyone who complains about an admin is a bit of a narcissist or troublemaker. There are also constant allegations that some admins are softer on people whose POV align with theirs, etc.
There are some admins who shouldn't be. They got there because they are good editors, not because they are good at being admins.
Some get it because they are better at political games, not because they are good editors.
When an admin uses his powers to win edit wars and harass those with whom he disagrees, it's time to reassess that editor's role in the project.
Having said that, one must also consider the question - what is the highest priority? Building an encyclopaedia or having a good working community of editors?
Of course, building an encyclopedia has first priority, but a good working community of editors is essential to accomplishing that goal.
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Peter Mackay wrote:
Having said that, one must also consider the question - what
is the highest
priority? Building an encyclopaedia or having a good working
community of
editors?
Of course, building an encyclopedia has first priority, but a good working community of editors is essential to accomplishing that goal.
I won't be popular for saying so, but I don't know that it is. My high school biology teacher used to delight in seating people together who hated each other. She reckoned you got more interesting and lively discussions that way and everyone benefited. My objective was to sit up the back somewhere and go to sleep, but that didn't happen in her class and I have fond memories of high school biol as being a great education experience.
Would we produce a great encyclopaedia if we all thought and worked the same way? I'm thinking that a certain degree of tension, conflict and competition helps us go beyond the banal. Some of the best features of Wikipedia are produced as a way of handling conflict. 3RR, for instance. It's silly, but it works.
And having ongoing experience with problem users - especially problem admins - makes us more able to handle future threats. Look at the way a solution emerged to the WoW thing. Of course it took a certain amount of screaming and kicking to get there, but it happened.
Peter (Skyring)
On 3/1/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Of course, building an encyclopedia has first priority, but a good working community of editors is essential to accomplishing that goal.
I won't be popular for saying so, but I don't know that it is. My high school biology teacher used to delight in seating people together who hated each other. She reckoned you got more interesting and lively discussions that way and everyone benefited. My objective was to sit up the back somewhere and go to sleep, but that didn't happen in her class and I have fond memories of high school biol as being a great education experience.
"Good working community" doesn't have to necessarily mean people like each other. Fiery people who disagree with each other often do generate lots of discussion, and anybody who has dealt with long-term POV pushers know that the short term result, at least, is a profound increase in citation, detail, and nuance in the articles themselves (and, when things die down, someone usually comes along later and says, "Why is all of this attention being devoted to such a minor issue?" and trims it up).
But I think these are exceptional situations -- the exceptions which prove the norm that most people don't like to work in antagonistic environments. There can be a case for too much antagonism. And disagreements need not be antagonistic, if they are civil (I disagree with people all the time, but rarely does it become a "dispute," much less anything truly unpleasant).
I think this entire discussion was originally about transparency. I think one could say that a lack of transparency does not kill discussion -- in fact, it might magnify it, though much of the discussion which results will be antagonistic, distrusting, and so forth.
There is also a question as to which battles need waging at all. I don't think we should mistake the burst of activity associated with dispute as necessarily being contributive to the goals of the encyclopedia. Has the userbox debate yet generated anything positive? Not in my viewing of it, at least not commensurate to the amount of frustration and negativity it has created on all sides of it, and the amount of resources it has taken up.
FF
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Has the userbox debate yet generated anything positive? Not in my viewing of it, at least not commensurate to the amount of frustration and negativity it has created on all sides of it, and the amount of resources it has taken up.
I regret my involvement in the userbox situation.
I've been away from Wikipedia for a while now, and have had time to reflect on recent affairs. I've also been doing some reading. The following paragraph jumped out at me from a book I was reading:
Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a movement from "consensus," in its original sense of unanimous agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today. This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings--reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity--can easily lead to decisions being taken with a psuedoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility.
This paragraph really describes what I think is going on at Wikipedia.
I think it's time we reconsider whether "consensus" is a valid principle of governance in as large and contentious a community as this one has become, and whether we need to make more of an effort to move to parliamentarianism as a method of governance.
I'm not quite crazy enough to sign Karmafist's manifesto, but I am now convinced -- after reading the discussions here and in other places -- that Wikipedia needs a strict rule prohibiting administrative "wheel wars": if an admin performs ANY admin action and any other admin objects to it, it MUST be reverted and the matter referred for discussion and decision amongst a proper deliberative body. The current methods are yielding "pseudoconsensus" -- or sometimes multiple pseudoconsensuses -- and are magnifying disputes instead of tempering them. Until something is done, things will only get worse. Continuining on this course cannot be the best thing for Wikipedia.
Kelly
On 3/1/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time we reconsider whether "consensus" is a valid principle of governance in as large and contentious a community as this one has become, and whether we need to make more of an effort to move to parliamentarianism as a method of governance.
We have already moved to something resembling that Athenian system combined with supermajority.
In many ways that is probably the ideal for stuff on the meta side. For arcticles the consensus system still holds for the most part.
-- geni
Kelly Martin wrote:
I regret my involvement in the userbox situation.
I've been away from Wikipedia for a while now, and have had time to reflect on recent affairs. I've also been doing some reading. The following paragraph jumped out at me from a book I was reading:
Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a movement from "consensus," in its original sense of unanimous agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today. This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings--reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity--can easily lead to decisions being taken with a psuedoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility.
This paragraph really describes what I think is going on at Wikipedia.
I think it's time we reconsider whether "consensus" is a valid principle of governance in as large and contentious a community as this one has become, and whether we need to make more of an effort to move to parliamentarianism as a method of governance.
I'm not quite crazy enough to sign Karmafist's manifesto, but I am now convinced -- after reading the discussions here and in other places -- that Wikipedia needs a strict rule prohibiting administrative "wheel wars": if an admin performs ANY admin action and any other admin objects to it, it MUST be reverted and the matter referred for discussion and decision amongst a proper deliberative body. The current methods are yielding "pseudoconsensus" -- or sometimes multiple pseudoconsensuses -- and are magnifying disputes instead of tempering them. Until something is done, things will only get worse. Continuining on this course cannot be the best thing for Wikipedia.
Kelly
Am I the only one who thinks it's a shame only geni replied to this? I think this is a rather good point being made -- consensus isn't scaling, at least when it comes to policy matters and meta issues, like wheel warring. On nearly everything else -- hell, even AfD (as a once-regular AfD closer now taking a break, I think much of the problems with it are overhyped) -- consensus is working great. But on policy, things are moving at a glacially slow pace.
One should also bear in mind that Karmafist's proposed legislature will operate on [[sociocracy]], or consensus, not on the usual idea of a Parliament.
Anyway, IMO, consensus ain't scaling WRT policy, wheel warring, etc. It's time to find something better. For now, however, as there appears to be no prospect of change in the near future, we need to drum it into people's heads: DON'T WHEEL WAR.
John
"John Lee" wrote
I think this is a rather good point being made -- consensus isn't scaling, at least when it comes to policy matters and meta issues, like wheel warring. On nearly everything else -- hell, even AfD (as a once-regular AfD closer now taking a break, I think much of the problems with it are overhyped) -- consensus is working great. But on policy, things are moving at a glacially slow pace.
A non-scaling idea of consensus is what we call 'not a consensus'.
There used to be a fairly relaxed view of policy. That is, there was the newbie version, which was fairly aspirational, and the 'old lags' version, which tested the limits, but took various good things like 'be bold' and 'assume good faith' and 'ignore all rules' (when the situation warranted it) as central - rather than assuming there was a theory test and manual of style handed out as you came in.
Have things moved on? Yes. We (metaphorically) shot the Old Bolsheviks, by banning User:Wik and annoying User:RickK and busting User:Ed Poor so far back into the ranks that his eyes watered. There may be one or two OBs left, but not many. It's a newish world out there.
And we now have to plan for 'The Eight-Figure enWP'.
When? Four years from now. That's compound growth of 1.2% per week, extrapolated.
Policy is going to be tighter. Wonkery is here to stay. Exegesis of policy is going to matter (I've just sent a Verifiability case study around, which was of course not aimed at SlimVirgin, who knows all this.) 'Unexpected consequences' bedevil us. For example, make people log in to create pages, and you get more logged in users, wondering about ... userboxes. Hah.
Glacial is about right (geese, golden eggs). Remembering that 2005, which the media are delighted to call a tough time for WP, was in fact a breakthrough year of huge achievement with a few blemishes on the face of things. Must have been WP's adolescence.
As they say, though not always of wikis - so cute when they're young, shame they have to grow up.
Charles
On 3/3/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
A non-scaling idea of consensus is what we call 'not a consensus'.
There used to be a fairly relaxed view of policy. That is, there was the newbie version, which was fairly aspirational, and the 'old lags' version, which tested the limits, but took various good things like 'be bold' and 'assume good faith' and 'ignore all rules' (when the situation warranted it) as central - rather than assuming there was a theory test and manual of style handed out as you came in.
You know, policy and process used to be relaxed because Wikipedia was a wholly new thing and no one had any idea how to make it work yet. We could only figure out what works through experience. But as time passed, and as experience repeated itself, we learned from it and the patterns inherent in it. There was quite a lot of naive innocence in the old days, but it couldn't last forever. What was once an amorphous mass is slowly taking shape and solidifying. As time passes it will inevitably solidify further. Corrections and adaptations will be made in an endless process, as it is with all evolving things, whether they are animals or city-states.
But the bottom line is that we've learned that some things just don't work, and so we have rules against them to help other people not make the same mistakes we did when we figured out that those things don't work. When I first came to Wikipedia I was an acrimonious editor who wrote a lot of hero worship about people he likee. Since then I've learned a better way, and we have rules about personal attacks, civility, and against original research so that other people won't make the same mistakes I did. These rules may not be broken because we know that they create a negative editing evironment. There are many other examples like this where rules and process have developed over time and experience, not drawn up arbitrarily out of thin air as some people seem to think they have been.
This has all been really stream-of-consciousness, but the point is that I'm noticing a trend here where people attack process just because it is process, not because they think it is actually wrong or harmful. Most of the time, we all agree with the rules. But those few times we disagree, don't criticize the whole idea of rules. Criticize the rules themselves. They're malleable, just like everything else here.
Ryan
On 3/7/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
You know, policy and process used to be relaxed because Wikipedia was a wholly new thing and no one had any idea how to make it work yet. We could only figure out what works through experience. But as time passed, and as experience repeated itself, we learned from it and the patterns inherent in it. There was quite a lot of naive innocence in the old days, but it couldn't last forever. What was once an amorphous mass is slowly taking shape and solidifying. As time passes it will inevitably solidify further. Corrections and adaptations will be made in an endless process, as it is with all evolving things, whether they are animals or city-states.
Your use of such phrases as "no one had any idea", "naive","amorphous" clearly indicates your bias.
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Your use of such phrases as "no one had any idea", "naive","amorphous" clearly indicates your bias.
I admit it; you've outed me. I'm biased toward my own view. Good work, detective.
Ryan
On 3/7/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Your use of such phrases as "no one had any idea", "naive","amorphous" clearly indicates your bias.
I admit it; you've outed me. I'm biased toward my own view. Good work, detective.
Ha! Moriarity, your days of profligate editing are over.
Ryan Delaney wrote:
You know, policy and process used to be relaxed because Wikipedia was a wholly new thing and no one had any idea how to make it work yet. We could only figure out what works through experience. But as time passed, and as experience repeated itself, we learned from it and the patterns inherent in it. There was quite a lot of naive innocence in the old days, but it couldn't last forever. What was once an amorphous mass is slowly taking shape and solidifying. As time passes it will inevitably solidify further. Corrections and adaptations will be made in an endless process, as it is with all evolving things, whether they are animals or city-states.
The fact is that people learn best by doing and making mistakes. A kid learning about computers doesn't start by reading a stack of manuals. He pokes at different keys to see what happens. Often nothing happens; occasionally the computer crashes, but he learns from that experience If the computer crashes the "punishment" comes directly from the act itself.
When impose a lot of rules we deny them that experience which was so important to our development. The process increasingly takes on the appearance of something inflexible that resembles the parents and teachers against whom they most rebelled.
But the bottom line is that we've learned that some things just don't work, and so we have rules against them to help other people not make the same mistakes we did when we figured out that those things don't work. When I first came to Wikipedia I was an acrimonious editor who wrote a lot of hero worship about people he likee. Since then I've learned a better way, and we have rules about personal attacks, civility, and against original research so that other people won't make the same mistakes I did. These rules may not be broken because we know that they create a negative editing evironment. There are many other examples like this where rules and process have developed over time and experience, not drawn up arbitrarily out of thin air as some people seem to think they have been.
We learned that some things don't work; the newcomers didn't. Depriving them of the opportunities to make mistakes is not "helping" them.
I treat ideas like civility and NPOV as prionciples rather than rules.
Ec
I treat ideas like civility and NPOV as prionciples rather than rules.
Ec
There is only one rule : don't offend the "cabal" (or any of the cliques w admin members), or you will be punished. The policies as written seem nice, but they have nothing to do with who is punished and who is not. Quality of articles has nothing to do with it either. Nepotism determines everything.
Please see my list of wikipedia's pro's and con's, if your interested in why your losing volunteers and creating "trolls".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sam_Spa...
SS
On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
There is only one rule : don't offend the "cabal" (or any of the cliques w admin members), or you will be punished. The policies as written seem nice, but they have nothing to do with who is punished and who is not. Quality of articles has nothing to do with it either. Nepotism determines everything.
Technically this will always be true, but ideally, admin cliques should only be offended by things that hurt Wikipedia.
On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
There is only one rule : don't offend the "cabal" (or any of the cliques w admin members), or you will be punished. The policies as written seem nice, but they have nothing to do with who is punished and who is not. Quality of articles has nothing to do with it either. Nepotism determines everything.
Technically this will always be true, but ideally, admin cliques should only be offended by things that hurt Wikipedia.
-- Philip L. Welch
Do I hurt the wikipedia? Have my 30,000+ edits been harmful?
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Sam+Spade&d...
Or is it perhaps simply a personality conflict with a certain "cabalist" which has damned me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sam_Spade/Pr...
I would argue that the wikipedia power structure interferes with the production of quality articles, discourages ordinary contributors (resulting in the high rate of editor turnover) and reduces what could have been a competent and rewarding process of peer review into a punishing and arbitrary "arbitration committee".
I recommend to anyone with any say about how things are being done to review any authoritative text on Behavior Modification. Punishment results in resentment, rewards encourage desired behavior.
SS
On Jun 2, 2006, at 7:57 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
Do I hurt the wikipedia? Have my 30,000+ edits been harmful?
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Sam +Spade&dbname=enwiki_p
Or is it perhaps simply a personality conflict with a certain "cabalist" which has damned me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Sam_Spade/Proposed_decision#Sam_Spade_assumes_bad_faith
I would argue that the wikipedia power structure interferes with the production of quality articles, discourages ordinary contributors (resulting in the high rate of editor turnover) and reduces what could have been a competent and rewarding process of peer review into a punishing and arbitrary "arbitration committee".
I recommend to anyone with any say about how things are being done to review any authoritative text on Behavior Modification. Punishment results in resentment, rewards encourage desired behavior.
Sam, you're a highly controversial personality, but I believe that Wikipedia is stronger overall with you around. Sometimes you baffle me, but your dedication to the project is unquestionable. I would hate to see you gone for whatever reason.
On Jun 2, 2006, at 8:57 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
There is only one rule : don't offend the "cabal" (or any of the cliques w admin members), or you will be punished. The policies as written seem nice, but they have nothing to do with who is punished and who is not. Quality of articles has nothing to do with it either. Nepotism determines everything.
Technically this will always be true, but ideally, admin cliques should only be offended by things that hurt Wikipedia.
-- Philip L. Welch
Do I hurt the wikipedia? Have my 30,000+ edits been harmful?
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Sam +Spade&dbname=enwiki_p
Or is it perhaps simply a personality conflict with a certain "cabalist" which has damned me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Sam_Spade/Proposed_decision#Sam_Spade_assumes_bad_faith
I would argue that the wikipedia power structure interferes with the production of quality articles, discourages ordinary contributors (resulting in the high rate of editor turnover) and reduces what could have been a competent and rewarding process of peer review into a punishing and arbitrary "arbitration committee".
I recommend to anyone with any say about how things are being done to review any authoritative text on Behavior Modification. Punishment results in resentment, rewards encourage desired behavior.
SS
We are not trying to modify your behavior, just reminding you that if you can't play nice, you can't play at all. Choosing to be alienated is your own choice.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We are not trying to modify your behavior, just reminding you that if you can't play nice, you can't play at all. Choosing to be alienated is your own choice.
Fred
I'm not alienated from most users, that should be obvious based on the results of past elections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_July_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_Decem...
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/arbcom
Notice a pattern? Growing support. I had the support of 30% of the voters in the last election. I understand that I am alienated from ''you'', but that is your choice, based on your behavior.
I'm not here to play games, I am here to help. I am about to stop helping however, because of your insulting behavior, and the ineffectual system that empowers you.
SS
Sam. You want straight answers? You want plain speaking? OK.
Do you hurt the encyclopedia? Yes. Do you also do good things? Yes, probably; it's pretty hard to make 30,000 edits from the same account without some of them being good. Do you do more damage to the encyclopedia than the good that you do? With the behavior that got the restrictions put on you by the ArbCom, yes, you do more damage. With some other set of behavior, maybe not. It continues to be your choice between leaving in a huff (which I doubt; if you were to go that way you would have done so already), or changing your behavior. The number of votes you get in elections to the ArbCom says nothing about if you damage the 'pedia or not, or if you behave in a manner which allows others to contribute effectively.
Jesse Weinstein
On Jun 2, 2006, at 3:36 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
We are not trying to modify your behavior, just reminding you that if you can't play nice, you can't play at all. Choosing to be alienated is your own choice.
Fred
I'm not alienated from most users, that should be obvious based on the results of past elections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: Arbitration_Committee_Elections_July_2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/arbcom
Notice a pattern? Growing support. I had the support of 30% of the voters in the last election. I understand that I am alienated from ''you'', but that is your choice, based on your behavior.
I'm not here to play games, I am here to help. I am about to stop helping however, because of your insulting behavior, and the ineffectual system that empowers you.
SS _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sam. You want straight answers? You want plain speaking? OK.
Do you hurt the encyclopedia? Yes. Do you also do good things? Yes, probably; it's pretty hard to make 30,000 edits from the same account without some of them being good. Do you do more damage to the encyclopedia than the good that you do? With the behavior that got the restrictions put on you by the ArbCom, yes, you do more damage.
Then I should have been banned along time ago. I think your wrong (or else I wouldn't have wasted so much time). How did you come to your conclusion, might I ask?
SS
The proposed arbitration remedy is very limited, reflecting the fact that the vast majority of your work on Wikipedia is both useful and welcome. Probation permits an administrator to ban you from an article which you disrupt by tendentious editing. It may only be applied in cases where that is what you are doing. Clearly, in a few articles you have done so.
If you had been elected to the arbitration committee you would no doubt have found probation useful yourself. It permits action in only the articles which the user has disrupted without interfering with their other activity. I know it is hard to accept, but a case like yours is why it was created, to give some middle ground between a total ban and having to endlessly put up with disruption and edit warring.
Fred
On Jun 3, 2006, at 7:12 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
Sam. You want straight answers? You want plain speaking? OK.
Do you hurt the encyclopedia? Yes. Do you also do good things? Yes, probably; it's pretty hard to make 30,000 edits from the same account without some of them being good. Do you do more damage to the encyclopedia than the good that you do? With the behavior that got the restrictions put on you by the ArbCom, yes, you do more damage.
Then I should have been banned along time ago. I think your wrong (or else I wouldn't have wasted so much time). How did you come to your conclusion, might I ask?
SS _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/3/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The proposed arbitration remedy is very limited, reflecting the fact that the vast majority of your work on Wikipedia is both useful and welcome. Probation permits an administrator to ban you from an article which you disrupt by tendentious editing. It may only be applied in cases where that is what you are doing. Clearly, in a few articles you have done so.
If you had been elected to the arbitration committee you would no doubt have found probation useful yourself. It permits action in only the articles which the user has disrupted without interfering with their other activity. I know it is hard to accept, but a case like yours is why it was created, to give some middle ground between a total ban and having to endlessly put up with disruption and edit warring.
Fred
It is not a middle ground, it is an unacceptable insult to my character.
A middle ground would have been to talk to me. A middle ground would have been to acknowledge that I have already agreed to stop edit warring, and that a good faith effort at compromise was never made by my complaintents, Bishonen in particular (who refused to talk to me, deleting a thread on her talk page prior to the arbitration).
Have you seen this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade#S...
Read the last statement in the thread, made by myself. Is permanant probation (or even arbitration) acceptable in such a case? What is the purpose of it, if not to drive me off? How are you doing what is best for the project?
SS
On Jun 3, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
On 6/3/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The proposed arbitration remedy is very limited, reflecting the fact that the vast majority of your work on Wikipedia is both useful and welcome. Probation permits an administrator to ban you from an article which you disrupt by tendentious editing. It may only be applied in cases where that is what you are doing. Clearly, in a few articles you have done so.
If you had been elected to the arbitration committee you would no doubt have found probation useful yourself. It permits action in only the articles which the user has disrupted without interfering with their other activity. I know it is hard to accept, but a case like yours is why it was created, to give some middle ground between a total ban and having to endlessly put up with disruption and edit warring.
Fred
It is not a middle ground, it is an unacceptable insult to my character.
A middle ground would have been to talk to me. A middle ground would have been to acknowledge that I have already agreed to stop edit warring, and that a good faith effort at compromise was never made by my complaintents, Bishonen in particular (who refused to talk to me, deleting a thread on her talk page prior to the arbitration).
Have you seen this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/ Sam_Spade#Sam_Spade_gives_it_a_try
Read the last statement in the thread, made by myself. Is permanant probation (or even arbitration) acceptable in such a case? What is the purpose of it, if not to drive me off? How are you doing what is best for the project?
SS
My main plan is to avoid conflict, as it seems less than worthwhile for me. What else would you like me to do?
That should do it.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
OK, done.
SS
On 6/3/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Jun 3, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
On 6/3/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The proposed arbitration remedy is very limited, reflecting the fact that the vast majority of your work on Wikipedia is both useful and welcome. Probation permits an administrator to ban you from an article which you disrupt by tendentious editing. It may only be applied in cases where that is what you are doing. Clearly, in a few articles you have done so.
If you had been elected to the arbitration committee you would no doubt have found probation useful yourself. It permits action in only the articles which the user has disrupted without interfering with their other activity. I know it is hard to accept, but a case like yours is why it was created, to give some middle ground between a total ban and having to endlessly put up with disruption and edit warring.
Fred
It is not a middle ground, it is an unacceptable insult to my character.
A middle ground would have been to talk to me. A middle ground would have been to acknowledge that I have already agreed to stop edit warring, and that a good faith effort at compromise was never made by my complaintents, Bishonen in particular (who refused to talk to me, deleting a thread on her talk page prior to the arbitration).
Have you seen this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/ Sam_Spade#Sam_Spade_gives_it_a_try
Read the last statement in the thread, made by myself. Is permanant probation (or even arbitration) acceptable in such a case? What is the purpose of it, if not to drive me off? How are you doing what is best for the project?
SS
My main plan is to avoid conflict, as it seems less than worthwhile for me. What else would you like me to do?
That should do it.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My main plan is to avoid conflict, as it seems less than worthwhile for me. What else would you like me to do?
That should do it.
Fred
On 6/3/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
OK, done.
SS
Now that we've got that out of the way, how about that process of competant peer review I was asking for? I'd like to help create an encyclopedia, not a netfriends community where I can be a second class member due to historical personality conflict.
SS
On 6/3/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Jun 3, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
process of competant peer review
Do you have a link to that?
Fred
If your asking where I asked for one, you'd have to scroll up in this thread. If your asking for a link about one, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
If your trying to understand what I'm talking about, I'm asking for a competent process of peer review to resolve the myriad disputes that brought me before you. That way we could have quality, peer reviewed articles instead of personality driven conflicts.
If you haven't noticed, I care about article quality, and am in no way "rogue". The idea that I should be put on "probation" due to having had annoyed a popular wiki-personality, rather than that the article disputes in question could use a thorough review astounds me.
Bottom line, is the wikipedia a web-community or an encyclopedia?
If it is an encyclopedia, can we please stop with all these games, and find a way to resolve content disputes?
If it is a web-community, I have no interest in it, and intend to leave.
Your no judge, I'm no criminal, and the only thing on "probation" around here is the wikipedia, which I will abstain from editing until this is resolved to my satisfaction. Either way I sternly recommend you find a better way to encourage your contributors.
SS
Sam, I find it especially rich (but, alas, wholly typical) that you are trying to turn this into your being the injured party.
It is this behaviour, among others, that has you brought before arbitration.
-Matt
On 6/4/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Sam, I find it especially rich (but, alas, wholly typical) that you are trying to turn this into your being the injured party.
It is this behaviour, among others, that has you brought before arbitration.
-Matt
The wikipedia is the injured party, I am meerly insulted.
The question is, are you able to move beyond the soap opera of personalities to address the substantive issues?
SS
On 6/3/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
The wikipedia is the injured party, I am meerly insulted.
I'd agree with the former, but with a different slant. Your absolute conviction of being Right and your unwillingness to discuss or compromise when you've made up your mind hurts Wikipedia. Your use of simple stubbornness to get your way injures Wikipedia. Your tendency to see your personal biases as neutral impairs Wikipedia. Your willingness to engage in interminable revert wars does not help Wikipedia improve.
The question is, are you able to move beyond the soap opera of personalities to address the substantive issues?
When your opponent tries to address the issues, you address personalities. When someone tries to address your personality and behaviour, you dismiss this and insist on the issues.
And now you feel insulted that the arbcom is minded to hold you to a standard of non-disruptiveness. Please.
-Matt
Where and how are we going to find anonymous experts?
Fred
On Jun 3, 2006, at 3:06 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
On 6/3/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Jun 3, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
process of competant peer review
Do you have a link to that?
Fred
If your asking where I asked for one, you'd have to scroll up in this thread. If your asking for a link about one, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
If your trying to understand what I'm talking about, I'm asking for a competent process of peer review to resolve the myriad disputes that brought me before you. That way we could have quality, peer reviewed articles instead of personality driven conflicts.
If you haven't noticed, I care about article quality, and am in no way "rogue". The idea that I should be put on "probation" due to having had annoyed a popular wiki-personality, rather than that the article disputes in question could use a thorough review astounds me.
Bottom line, is the wikipedia a web-community or an encyclopedia?
If it is an encyclopedia, can we please stop with all these games, and find a way to resolve content disputes?
If it is a web-community, I have no interest in it, and intend to leave.
Your no judge, I'm no criminal, and the only thing on "probation" around here is the wikipedia, which I will abstain from editing until this is resolved to my satisfaction. Either way I sternly recommend you find a better way to encourage your contributors.
SS _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/4/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Where and how are we going to find anonymous experts?
Fred
Isn't that a large part of our demographic? Heck, we could simply consider anyone who shows an interest in agiven topic an "expert", but if thats not good enough somebody higher up could check their credentials.
People could fax their diploma or some such. It doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. Personally I'd just like to see some '''informed''' party with the final say (i.e. not a random, non-expert admin or arbiter).
Why do you think I was edit warring? To make articles better. There is a power vacuum, and I was trying to do what worked. I was able to get the taxobox at the top of the human page by edit warring. Of course I discuss throughout as well. Each and every one of the pages in question has a talk page, to which I contributed extensively. Unfortunately, edit warring doesn't work when your outnumbered by determined POV pushers working as a voting bloc.
That, combined with the fact that I was asked politely to make some changes in my RfC convinced me to stop. Thats all it takes, just a polite request. Just like a prison sentance doesn't stop crime, your ARBCOM doesn't prevent abuses of your system. People who are abusive will do what they can, when they can, and thats alot.
I am not an abuser however, I am an offended contributer. The fact that you can't tell the difference is a big problem.
You need an organic solution to the differences of opinion (editing disputes) that crop up on each and every controversial page. You can't ban and punish your way out of it. Contributers don't deserve it, and the abusers just ignore you and create a new account on a new computer. Punishment makes people worse, trust me.
SS
On 6/3/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
People could fax their diploma or some such. It doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. Personally I'd just like to see some '''informed''' party with the final say (i.e. not a random, non-expert admin or arbiter).
And if there's a technical area where the experts have a disagreement, and the one who shows up first happens to be strongly biased in one direction or the other?
What about fields where the number of experts are either tiny, or they are for various reasons grossly unlikely to ever contribute to Wikipedia?
What does it say to people who are jacks-of-many-trades if you institute a policy which says that only a degree is valid qualification, and that it doesn't matter how many fields you may publish in, work professionally in, have patents in, only the ones on your degree matter for WP?
This suggestion seems likely to seriously curb a lot of otherwise qualified involvement.
On 6/4/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
People could fax their diploma or some such. It doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. Personally I'd just like to see some '''informed''' party with the final say (i.e. not a random, non-expert admin or arbiter).
And if there's a technical area where the experts have a disagreement, and the one who shows up first happens to be strongly biased in one direction or the other?
What about fields where the number of experts are either tiny, or they are for various reasons grossly unlikely to ever contribute to Wikipedia?
What does it say to people who are jacks-of-many-trades if you institute a policy which says that only a degree is valid qualification, and that it doesn't matter how many fields you may publish in, work professionally in, have patents in, only the ones on your degree matter for WP?
This suggestion seems likely to seriously curb a lot of otherwise qualified involvement.
-- -george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com
There is also the other suggestion, that anyone who is contributing to the article counts as a peer. Also there are possibilities for reader involvement, if someone was willing to code a small feature to allow a reader to rate an article, and/or which of 2 competing versions they prefer.
The point is that there needs to be some sort of organic, small scale decision making mechanism, to allow resolution for edit conflict. It would be awesome if we could find one that was any good at judging article quality as well.
The way the system is now, it exaggerates conflict. For example, I tend to get along with everyone IRL. People tend to like me, generally agree with me, and its easy to make friends.
The wikipedia is acompletely different story. Because people get to know me based on conflict (nobody notices when you make a good edit), and because cliques are encouraged (RfA, etc...), it took practically no time for me to have a gang of enemies on the wikipedia. The system is sick, and punishing those who are willing to accept your punishments (i.e. good users) is not an answer. The abusers can continue to abuse the system, the stressed contributors leave, and the cliques focus on chatting with one another about their cats and gossiping about outgroup members, not creating quality encyclopedia articles.
We need more productive, rewarding processes (FA / collaborative editing), and less punishing processes (ARBCOM / RfC). Getting rid of the clique building mechanisms (RfA/AfD) would help alot too. Wikipedia has more ugly little cliques than my middle school had, and sadly their are no impartial teachers to step in and break up fights, because their all in cliques too.
SS
That was based on your repeated insistence that National Socialism was some sort of socialism. You fought like a bulldog for that point. You probably could not have chosen an axe to grind that would have been more disruptive.
Fred
On Jun 4, 2006, at 9:40 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
it took practically no time for me to have a gang of enemies on the wikipedia.
On 6/4/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
That was based on your repeated insistence that National Socialism was some sort of socialism. You fought like a bulldog for that point. You probably could not have chosen an axe to grind that would have been more disruptive.
Fred
Actually your wrong, it's based on my opposition to atheism which caused a gang of POV warriors to spill over from Human to God to fight w me. They then noticed Infinity0's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socialism/Archive_7#Discussion_of_User:Sam...
on talk socialism. Combined, they started a RfC, which caught the notice of Bishonen, the only person who had the right connections to make an ArbCom case viable. She didn't fulfill the requirements of participating in the RfC (she had never tried to resolve anything with me, and had indeed deleted my attempt to discuss matters w her on her talk page),
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen&diff=4713...
but that didn't seem to matter. Due to her anger with me (which has nothing to do with socialism btw, but instead related to a separate personality conflict I had LONG ago w a friend of hers, El C), she rammed through the ArbCom case, despite my having made significant compromises (of which you are aware).
The fact that you accepted the case is sad, but understandable. The fact that you think it has to do with the fact that National Socialism is a form of socialism (which it is by any authoritative definition I have ever heard) is based on your own POV, Mr. Bauder. You've made it clear in the past that my position on this issue annoys you.
The truth is, I have no "axe to grind". Instead, heartened by having received my 1st featured article (Human), I decided to try for another (socialism). In order to do so I sought out a communist friend of mine who also happens to be a wikipedia editor, and tried to figure out the best way to improve Socialism w his assistance. That was going ok until Infinity0 started reverting and belligerently failing comprehend the obvious (NPOV, not pro-socialist POV is ment to dominate). The rest is history.
My question is, what is a better article, my version of Socialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialism&oldid=46504293
or what currently stands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
my version of the God intro:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&oldid=46819733
or the current version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
And finally, what is abetter version of Human, the featured article version i endorsed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&oldid=24562750
or the secular humanist version we find today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Those are the sorts of questions which need answered, not how to best punish the guy who presents facts which annoy others. Our goal needs to be quality articles, not personality politics.
SS
On 6/4/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
Those are the sorts of questions which need answered, not how to best punish the guy who presents facts which annoy others.
Another key to the problem here, Sam. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You percieve your biases as neutral.
-Matt
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 20:37:55 -0700, you wrote:
Another key to the problem here, Sam. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You percieve your biases as neutral.
Wise words.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/4/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
my version of the God intro:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&oldid=46819733
or the current version:
For what it's worth, and only because you asked, I vastly prefer the current version.
"God denotes the deity believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe."
as opposed to
"God is the term for the Supreme Being believed by the majority[1][2][3] to be the creator, ruler and/or the sum total of, existence."
"believed by the majority" is an awful, weaselly, phrase (majority of whom?) that has no place in the first sentence of such an important article. I also take exception to "X is the term" articles - see [[Wikipedia:Grapefruit]].
The fact that a majority of people in some sphere (all humans? all Americans?) believe in God is highly relevant, but at the end of the day, it is a belief system, and most people recognise that. I imagine that most believers are happy with the statement "I believe in God, but I recognise that others don't", rather than requiring "God exists, but some people refuse to recognise that".
And finally, what is abetter version of Human, the featured article version i endorsed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&oldid=24562750
or the secular humanist version we find today:
Fwiw, I don't like your version here either. The initial sentence is a bad definition "X defines itself in terms of Y"???
Since you asked.
Steve
Another key to the problem here, Sam. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You percieve your biases as neutral.
Wise words.
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
my version of the God intro:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&oldid=46819733
or the current version:
For what it's worth, and only because you asked, I vastly prefer the current version.
"God denotes the deity believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe."
as opposed to
"God is the term for the Supreme Being believed by the majority[1][2][3] to be the creator, ruler and/or the sum total of, existence."
"believed by the majority" is an awful, weaselly, phrase (majority of whom?) that has no place in the first sentence of such an important article. I also take exception to "X is the term" articles - see [[Wikipedia:Grapefruit]].
The fact that a majority of people in some sphere (all humans? all Americans?) believe in God is highly relevant, but at the end of the day, it is a belief system, and most people recognise that. I imagine that most believers are happy with the statement "I believe in God, but I recognise that others don't", rather than requiring "God exists, but some people refuse to recognise that".
And finally, what is abetter version of Human, the featured article version i endorsed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&oldid=24562750
or the secular humanist version we find today:
Fwiw, I don't like your version here either. The initial sentence is a bad definition "X defines itself in terms of Y"???
Since you asked.
Steve
Well thank you Steve. If there had been a method of determining which version was prefered, it certainly would have saved us all alot of time and trouble. Unfortunately, each of our opinions are just as arbitrary as yours.
To the peanut gallary, no, my opinions are not always facts, but the information I was inserting into the respective articles is. Check the cites.
SS
On 6/5/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
Well thank you Steve. If there had been a method of determining which version was prefered, it certainly would have saved us all alot of time and trouble. Unfortunately, each of our opinions are just as arbitrary as yours.
Wikipedia would not work if we stopped at "each of our opinions are...arbitrary". Maybe our opinions have arbitrary starting points, but we work towards compromise and agreement by discussion. If you don't like my "opinion" (I would have called it criticism), I would welcome your explanation of why, the strong points of your version etc. Lining people up in camps and dismissing their opinion as "arbitrary" or biased (and I'm not accusing you of this) is antithetical to Wikipedia's functioning.
To the peanut gallary, no, my opinions are not always facts, but the information I was inserting into the respective articles is. Check the cites.
A "cite" does not make a fact, and it does not make something worthy of conclusion.
Steve
G'day Steve,
On 6/5/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip/>
To the peanut gallary, no, my opinions are not always facts, but the information I was inserting into the respective articles is. Check the cites.
A "cite" does not make a fact, and it does not make something worthy of conclusion.
In this case, assuming my memory is not malfunctioning yet again, I believe Sam's "cite" was: "a certain percentage of Americans are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim". Which then became: "the majority of humans believe in God."
In other words, the cite was no good for what he wanted to claim, and only served to add America-centrism to his long list of offensive editing practices.
In this case, assuming my memory is not malfunctioning yet again, I believe Sam's "cite" was: "a certain percentage of Americans are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim". Which then became: "the majority of humans believe in God."
In other words, the cite was no good for what he wanted to claim, and only served to add America-centrism to his long list of offensive editing practices.
Look at them again.
It was three cites, 2 of american, the third a BBC international survey. Not that the facts make any difference, when you already have your mind made up. I expected encyclopedia readers to be better than this...
SS
Though I'm having trouble finding the exact diff again, the BBC study you cite on the talk page of the article is only for 10 countries. One of those omitted is the most populous country in the world, which happens to generally be pretty low on the whole monotheistic thing.
I don't want to imply you're being unfaithful in your use of statistics, but the inadequacy of these citations as justifying your statements was pointed out by others on the page as well. According to one of the pages there (http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) monotheists make up only a relatively slim majority. I think your "believed by the majority" gives somewhat of a different impression as to the actual split.
In any case, Sam, in the end the content of the article is not up to YOU, personally, but a process of work and compromise. I'll add my voice to the large number of people who prefer a more neutral definition, the one which currently exists, and doesn't play any games about the numbers.
It's stuff like this which makes people pretty suspicious of your ability to recognize your own biases, Sam.
FF
On 6/5/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
It was three cites, 2 of american, the third a BBC international survey. Not that the facts make any difference, when you already have your mind made up. I expected encyclopedia readers to be better than this...
SS _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Though I'm having trouble finding the exact diff again, the BBC study you cite on the talk page of the article is only for 10 countries. One of those omitted is the most populous country in the world, which happens to generally be pretty low on the whole monotheistic thing.
I don't want to imply you're being unfaithful in your use of statistics, but the inadequacy of these citations as justifying your statements was pointed out by others on the page as well. According to one of the pages there (http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) monotheists make up only a relatively slim majority. I think your "believed by the majority" gives somewhat of a different impression as to the actual split.
In any case, Sam, in the end the content of the article is not up to YOU, personally, but a process of work and compromise. I'll add my voice to the large number of people who prefer a more neutral definition, the one which currently exists, and doesn't play any games about the numbers.
It's stuff like this which makes people pretty suspicious of your ability to recognize your own biases, Sam.
FF
On 6/5/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
It was three cites, 2 of american, the third a BBC international survey. Not that the facts make any difference, when you already have your mind made up. I expected encyclopedia readers to be better than this...
SS
Here is the link again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&oldid=46819733
SS
Kelly Martin (kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com) [060302 10:54]:
Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a movement from "consensus," in its original sense of unanimous agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today. This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings--reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity--can easily lead to decisions being taken with a psuedoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility. This paragraph really describes what I think is going on at Wikipedia. I think it's time we reconsider whether "consensus" is a valid principle of governance in as large and contentious a community as this one has become, and whether we need to make more of an effort to move to parliamentarianism as a method of governance.
I'd question this given Kim and Gmaxwell's numbers showing almost all articles on Wikipedia aren't contentious at all and consensus works fine. The pathological articles are the bits you hear about, not the majority.
We must take care not to fuck up the good bits to deal with the broken bits.
- d.
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I'd question this given Kim and Gmaxwell's numbers showing almost all articles on Wikipedia aren't contentious at all and consensus works fine. The pathological articles are the bits you hear about, not the majority.
I'm not talking about articles here. I'm talking about community and policy. Evidence is quite clear that consensus works on individual articles most of the time. However, evidence is also quite clear that consensus as a mechanism to craft broader policy for the encyclopedia and for the community does not work.
Adopting parliamentarianism as a guiding principle for the community does not mean that article editing would not continue to be governed by consensus. It's just that our unreasonable love of "consensus" as a governing principle has led us into an increasingly bad situation -- just as it did for the House of Lords oh so many decades ago.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a movement from "consensus," in its original sense of unanimous agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today. This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings--reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity--can easily lead to decisions being taken with a psuedoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility.
In a consensual system the risk of pseudoconsensus is definitely there, as is the risk of institutional paralysis. An effective system of consensus depends on both assuming and exercising good faith, and the belief that if people work toward it a mutually satisfactory solution will be found. It is inimical to those who want a quick solution favoring their individual objectives. Paradoxically consensus cannot be achieved by *making* it the norm; such "making" is contrary to the spirit of consensus. If we recognize the above-stated and very real difficulties of a consensual system that should be a first step for finding a solution to those difficulties, not an excuse for abandoning the system.
I think it's time we reconsider whether "consensus" is a valid principle of governance in as large and contentious a community as this one has become, and whether we need to make more of an effort to move to parliamentarianism as a method of governance.
Obviously, the larger and more contentious the community, the bigger the challenge of consensus. But we cannot undertake such a debate without an open analysis of parliamentarianism's defects. Such a system encourages the forming of parties that will promote and protect particular policies, and who will be happy to have their POV succeed by a bare majority. It leads to the tyranny of the majority.
I'm not quite crazy enough to sign Karmafist's manifesto,
Any manifesto is like the opening gunshots in a battle of bad faith.
but I am now convinced -- after reading the discussions here and in other places -- that Wikipedia needs a strict rule prohibiting administrative "wheel wars": if an admin performs ANY admin action and any other admin objects to it, it MUST be reverted and the matter referred for discussion and decision amongst a proper deliberative body. The current methods are yielding "pseudoconsensus" -- or sometimes multiple pseudoconsensuses -- and are magnifying disputes instead of tempering them. Until something is done, things will only get worse. Continuining on this course cannot be the best thing for Wikipedia.
Admins must be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a simple user. For example, if a policy allows any admin to block a user for a maximum of 24 hours, there isabsolutely no excuse for blocks that exceed that length of time. Perhaps that admin himself should be blocked for the amount of the excess time. I would not go so far as to support having ALL admin actions immedialtely revertible, but the ones that aren't should be clearly defined. Where an admin has removed a clearly libellous statement from an article the discussion should happen first.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
<snip>
Admins must be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a simple user. For example, if a policy allows any admin to block a user for a maximum of 24 hours, there isabsolutely no excuse for blocks that exceed that length of time. Perhaps that admin himself should be blocked for the amount of the excess time. I would not go so far as to support having ALL admin actions immedialtely revertible, but the ones that aren't should be clearly defined. Where an admin has removed a clearly libellous statement from an article the discussion should happen first.
Ec
I was about to sleep, but I need to reply to this.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Admins must be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a simple user. For example, if a policy allows any admin to block a user for a maximum of 24 hours, there isabsolutely no excuse for blocks that exceed that length of time. Perhaps that admin himself should be blocked for the amount of the excess time. I would not go so far as to support having ALL admin actions immedialtely revertible, but the ones that aren't should be clearly defined. Where an admin has removed a clearly libellous statement from an article the discussion should happen first.
Ec
Eek, sorry for the half-baked reply earlier. Stupid computers...
Anyway, I think those ideas are terrible. Process is important, but it should not be fetishised. Blocking people for being pricks is one thing, but lying about it and using the excuse of "blocking for imposing a block exceeding 24 hours" is stupid and crazy. Has everyone gone mad over the [[literal rule]] lately? Whatever happened to the [[mischief rule]]? Our policies exist only because there tends to be a 1:1 correlation between the targets of their remedies and people being dicks. Now people seem to think this correlation can hold, even if we start developing policies with loopholes begging for trolls to demand someone be sanctioned for "violating policy". In the end, process exists as a guide to ferreting out the dicks in the community. It is not meant to be used to find people you can label dicks and then sanction for doing something else entirely.
I should also remind you that blocks are not meant to be punitive. I find the idea of punishing an admin for a mistake by blocking utterly ludicrous. Either the admin made a mistake, is compulsively a mistake-maker/dick acting in good faith (not going to name names...), or is just a plain dick acting in bad faith. The latter should be dealt with by the arbcom or common sense; the two former categories *may* be dealt with in a similar manner, but not always.
John
John Lee wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Admins must be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a simple user. For example, if a policy allows any admin to block a user for a maximum of 24 hours, there isabsolutely no excuse for blocks that exceed that length of time. Perhaps that admin himself should be blocked for the amount of the excess time. I would not go so far as to support having ALL admin actions immedialtely revertible, but the ones that aren't should be clearly defined. Where an admin has removed a clearly libellous statement from an article the discussion should happen first.
Anyway, I think those ideas are terrible. Process is important, but it should not be fetishised. Blocking people for being pricks is one thing, but lying about it and using the excuse of "blocking for imposing a block exceeding 24 hours" is stupid and crazy.
24 hours is enough to cover off any possible urgency to an admin's unilateral action. It gives others time to review the block, and extend it if that's appropriate, perhaps based on a recommendation by that admin. Admins should know the rules better than a newbie, so why shouldn't those rules be applied equally? I don't see where lying enters into the picture at all.
Has everyone gone mad over the [[literal rule]] lately? Whatever happened to the [[mischief rule]]? Our policies exist only because there tends to be a 1:1 correlation between the targets of their remedies and people being dicks. Now people seem to think this correlation can hold, even if we start developing policies with loopholes begging for trolls to demand someone be sanctioned for "violating policy". In the end, process exists as a guide to ferreting out the dicks in the community. It is not meant to be used to find people you can label dicks and then sanction for doing something else entirely.
The mischief that such a rule would address is admins who are being dicks by imposing excessive blocks before another admin even has a chance to look at the problem being addressed.
I should also remind you that blocks are not meant to be punitive.
Absolutely, and that's exactly the problem that is being addressed.
I find the idea of punishing an admin for a mistake by blocking utterly ludicrous. Either the admin made a mistake, is compulsively a mistake-maker/dick acting in good faith (not going to name names...), or is just a plain dick acting in bad faith. The latter should be dealt with by the arbcom or common sense; the two former categories *may* be dealt with in a similar manner, but not always.
Common sense tells me that this would get the message across to rogue admins much more quickly than a lot of wangling at arbcom.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
John Lee wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Admins must be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a simple user. For example, if a policy allows any admin to block a user for a maximum of 24 hours, there isabsolutely no excuse for blocks that exceed that length of time. Perhaps that admin himself should be blocked for the amount of the excess time. I would not go so far as to support having ALL admin actions immedialtely revertible, but the ones that aren't should be clearly defined. Where an admin has removed a clearly libellous statement from an article the discussion should happen first.
Anyway, I think those ideas are terrible. Process is important, but it should not be fetishised. Blocking people for being pricks is one thing, but lying about it and using the excuse of "blocking for imposing a block exceeding 24 hours" is stupid and crazy.
24 hours is enough to cover off any possible urgency to an admin's unilateral action. It gives others time to review the block, and extend it if that's appropriate, perhaps based on a recommendation by that admin. Admins should know the rules better than a newbie, so why shouldn't those rules be applied equally? I don't see where lying enters into the picture at all.
So, if someone finds an open proxy/Willy on Wheels/communism vandal, they're only allowed to block for 24 hours? At which point /another/ admin must waste precious time re-doing the first action? That's about as silly as making admins tag speedies instead of just shooting them on sight.
Has everyone gone mad over the [[literal rule]] lately? Whatever happened to the [[mischief rule]]? Our policies exist only because there tends to be a 1:1 correlation between the targets of their remedies and people being dicks. Now people seem to think this correlation can hold, even if we start developing policies with loopholes begging for trolls to demand someone be sanctioned for "violating policy". In the end, process exists as a guide to ferreting out the dicks in the community. It is not meant to be used to find people you can label dicks and then sanction for doing something else entirely.
The mischief that such a rule would address is admins who are being dicks by imposing excessive blocks before another admin even has a chance to look at the problem being addressed.
So, you'd rather punish 500+ good admins for the sake of a few bad ones?
I should also remind you that blocks are not meant to be punitive.
Absolutely, and that's exactly the problem that is being addressed.
I'm not sure I follow you.
I find the idea of punishing an admin for a mistake by blocking utterly ludicrous. Either the admin made a mistake, is compulsively a mistake-maker/dick acting in good faith (not going to name names...), or is just a plain dick acting in bad faith. The latter should be dealt with by the arbcom or common sense; the two former categories *may* be dealt with in a similar manner, but not always.
Common sense tells me that this would get the message across to rogue admins much more quickly than a lot of wangling at arbcom.
And then pretty soon admins will be afraid to use the admin tools at all, for fear of being dragged off to Arbcom.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
John Lee wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Admins must be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a simple user. For example, if a policy allows any admin to block a user for a maximum of 24 hours, there isabsolutely no excuse for blocks that exceed that length of time. Perhaps that admin himself should be blocked for the amount of the excess time. I would not go so far as to support having ALL admin actions immedialtely revertible, but the ones that aren't should be clearly defined. Where an admin has removed a clearly libellous statement from an article the discussion should happen first.
Anyway, I think those ideas are terrible. Process is important, but it should not be fetishised. Blocking people for being pricks is one thing, but lying about it and using the excuse of "blocking for imposing a block exceeding 24 hours" is stupid and crazy.
24 hours is enough to cover off any possible urgency to an admin's unilateral action. It gives others time to review the block, and extend it if that's appropriate, perhaps based on a recommendation by that admin. Admins should know the rules better than a newbie, so why shouldn't those rules be applied equally? I don't see where lying enters into the picture at all.
So, if someone finds an open proxy/Willy on Wheels/communism vandal, they're only allowed to block for 24 hours? At which point /another/ admin must waste precious time re-doing the first action? That's about as silly as making admins tag speedies instead of just shooting them on sight.
If the culprit is that far gone, I'm sure that more than one admin would be aware of the situation, and they could collectively find a longer term solution.
Has everyone gone mad over the [[literal rule]] lately? Whatever happened to the [[mischief rule]]? Our policies exist only because there tends to be a 1:1 correlation between the targets of their remedies and people being dicks. Now people seem to think this correlation can hold, even if we start developing policies with loopholes begging for trolls to demand someone be sanctioned for "violating policy". In the end, process exists as a guide to ferreting out the dicks in the community. It is not meant to be used to find people you can label dicks and then sanction for doing something else entirely.
The mischief that such a rule would address is admins who are being dicks by imposing excessive blocks before another admin even has a chance to look at the problem being addressed.
So, you'd rather punish 500+ good admins for the sake of a few bad ones?
I think you've got the numbers the wrong way about. The good admins likely accept such a thing easily.
I should also remind you that blocks are not meant to be punitive.
Absolutely, and that's exactly the problem that is being addressed.
I'm not sure I follow you.
A good disciplinary system will focus on being remedial rather than punitive. It will encourage appropriate behaviours that integrate the wrongdoer with the community rather than exiling him with harsh punishments.
I find the idea of punishing an admin for a mistake by blocking utterly ludicrous. Either the admin made a mistake, is compulsively a mistake-maker/dick acting in good faith (not going to name names...), or is just a plain dick acting in bad faith. The latter should be dealt with by the arbcom or common sense; the two former categories *may* be dealt with in a similar manner, but not always.
Common sense tells me that this would get the message across to rogue admins much more quickly than a lot of wangling at arbcom.
And then pretty soon admins will be afraid to use the admin tools at all, for fear of being dragged off to Arbcom.
Fantastic!
On 3/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
And then pretty soon admins will be afraid to use the admin tools at all, for fear of being dragged off to Arbcom.
Fantastic!
and then, teh tehrorrists^Wvandals will have won
Let's start by renaming that thread. Just because a single admin can cause problems doesn't mean there's an "admin problem". That implies all of them abuse their powers which is totally untrue.
Mgm
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:20:56 +0100, you wrote:
Just because a single admin can cause problems doesn't mean there's an "admin problem". That implies all of them abuse their powers which is totally untrue.
And anyone who disagrees gets an indef-block. OK?
Bugger, how do I subst the humour template in an email? Guy (JzG)
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Let's start by renaming that thread. Just because a single admin can cause problems doesn't mean there's an "admin problem". That implies all of them abuse their powers which is totally untrue.
Your essential premise is valid, but that smaller number who abuse their powers manage to generate enough distrust to go around.
Ec
On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In a consensual system the risk of pseudoconsensus is definitely there, as is the risk of institutional paralysis. An effective system of consensus depends on both assuming and exercising good faith, and the belief that if people work toward it a mutually satisfactory solution will be found. It is inimical to those who want a quick solution favoring their individual objectives. Paradoxically consensus cannot be achieved by *making* it the norm; such "making" is contrary to the spirit of consensus. If we recognize the above-stated and very real difficulties of a consensual system that should be a first step for finding a solution to those difficulties, not an excuse for abandoning the system.
As a political environment grows, the probability of achieving 100% agreement approaches 0. Therefore there will more and more frequently come times where some dissenting views must be acknowledged but the dominant view carried out; that is, we can't sit around debating until everyone agrees. Eventually we have to take action. That's a vital feature of the democratic political process; it permits dissent but goes with the predominant view anyway.
I don't think anyone can disagree that politics on Wikipedia are going to have to make a turn in this direction some time in the future. (I happen to think that time will be soon but that's another debate) But we can't do it without some kind of parliamentarianism, because we can't expect the "community at large" to be self-regulating about determining the predominant view and executing it fairly. That would be akin to giving a gun to every citizen and saying "Whenever you see someone commit murder, go ahead and execute them." This kind of tribal justice system might work well in a small group, maybe even a few hundred, because everyone knows everyone else and any individual can be held accountable for his actions by the group. But when you do that with thousands of people, they will organize into militias and initiate warfare, each of them thinking both that justice is on their side and that they have a right to execute the law themselves.
Historically that has been solved by taking the power to use violence away from the people and concentrating it into one sovereign power that is accountable to everyone. We have done half of that by only granting the dangerous powers to a select batch of administrators. But as that group grows, we see the need for further stratification and wheel wars emerge. It's a political inevitability, and any of our historical political philosophers could have anticipated it. The suggestion here is to take the next step and create a more organized body so that everyone knows that the power and the responsibility are in the same hands and on the same shoulders.
Obviously, the larger and more contentious the community, the bigger the
challenge of consensus. But we cannot undertake such a debate without an open analysis of parliamentarianism's defects. Such a system encourages the forming of parties that will promote and protect particular policies, and who will be happy to have their POV succeed by a bare majority. It leads to the tyranny of the majority.
Well, straight democracy, where any subject is up to a vote and any individual can be sacrificed if 51% of the population votes to do so would have this defect. But very few of these democracies actually exist. In the United States for example, some subjects are emphatically not up for a vote or discussion, and the parliament may not pass laws on them. I would expect that this would be the case with Wikipedia as well.
Ryan
On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Obviously, the larger and more contentious the community, the bigger the challenge of consensus. But we cannot undertake such a debate without an open analysis of parliamentarianism's defects. Such a system encourages the forming of parties that will promote and protect particular policies, and who will be happy to have their POV succeed by a bare majority. It leads to the tyranny of the majority.
Parties generaly require a representive democracy. What we have is closer to the athian system.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Obviously, the larger and more contentious the community, the bigger the challenge of consensus. But we cannot undertake such a debate without an open analysis of parliamentarianism's defects. Such a system encourages the forming of parties that will promote and protect particular policies, and who will be happy to have their POV succeed by a bare majority. It leads to the tyranny of the majority.
Parties generaly require a representive democracy. What we have is closer to the athian system.
Oh, I don't know; first there were the Inclusionists, Deletionists and Mergists; then there were the "joke parties" like the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD; then the ultra-conservative nuts like the Association of Moral Wikipedians, Wikipedians for Decency, and finally the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia...
...and now, while the people who still take the ADW and AIW seriously are largely confined to AFD/DRV (where they've become anally retentive process fetishests), two new powers have emerged: the Pro- and Anti- Userboxes camps.
An interesting thing to note about all of the wrangling is that most of it has been about "What is Wikipedia"; the Inclusionsionist/Deletionist debate was largely about whether we should have articles on schools or not, and the Userbox debate seems to be about whether user pages are free webspace where you can promote your political agendas or not.
On 3/7/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I don't know; first there were the Inclusionists, Deletionists and Mergists; then there were the "joke parties" like the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD
Hey, who says the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD is a joke party?
;-)
-Kat Staunchly and unswervingly flexible. Yeah, that's it.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking "Once you have tasted flight you will always walk with your eyes cast upward. For there you have been and there you will always be." - Leonardo da Vinci
On 3/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I don't know; first there were the Inclusionists, Deletionists
Pro-content and Pro-encylopedists
and Mergists; then there were the "joke parties" like the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD; then the ultra-conservative nuts like the Association of Moral Wikipedians, Wikipedians for Decency, and finally the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia...
You will note these parties are for the most part single issue and there is nothing to stop you joining more than one of them.
...and now, while the people who still take the ADW and AIW seriously are largely confined to AFD/DRV (where they've become anally retentive process fetishests), two new powers have emerged: the Pro- and Anti- Userboxes camps.
Two much simplifaction. The process fetishests and anti-process groups are also around and involved in the conflict alough pinning them down to ether side can be tricky (probably favouring the pro userpage freedom group at the monement since they have mostly stayed within policy (admitedly with some interesting interpritations) unlike the template namespace presivation group
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I don't know; first there were the Inclusionists, Deletionists
Pro-content and Pro-encylopedists
and Mergists; then there were the "joke parties" like the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD; then the ultra-conservative nuts like the Association of Moral Wikipedians, Wikipedians for Decency, and finally the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia...
You will note these parties are for the most part single issue and there is nothing to stop you joining more than one of them.
...and now, while the people who still take the ADW and AIW seriously are largely confined to AFD/DRV (where they've become anally retentive process fetishests), two new powers have emerged: the Pro- and Anti- Userboxes camps.
Two much simplifaction. The process fetishests and anti-process groups are also around and involved in the conflict alough pinning them down to ether side can be tricky (probably favouring the pro userpage freedom group at the monement since they have mostly stayed within policy (admitedly with some interesting interpritations) unlike the template namespace presivation group
So, like a parliament, there are party politics, including single-issue parties, floor-crossers, and a few independants.
On 3/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So, like a parliament, there are party politics, including single-issue parties, floor-crossers, and a few independants.
Not in my country.
Consider you could have a:
deletionist, pro policy, anti userboxer
or a
deletionist, anti policy pro userboxer
Are they in the same part?
-- geni
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Obviously, the larger and more contentious the community, the bigger the challenge of consensus. But we cannot undertake such a debate without an open analysis of parliamentarianism's defects. Such a system encourages the forming of parties that will promote and protect particular policies, and who will be happy to have their POV succeed by a bare majority. It leads to the tyranny of the majority.
Parties generaly require a representive democracy. What we have is closer to the athian system.
Oh, I don't know; first there were the Inclusionists, Deletionists and Mergists; then there were the "joke parties" like the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD; then the ultra-conservative nuts like the Association of Moral Wikipedians, Wikipedians for Decency, and finally the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia...
...and now, while the people who still take the ADW and AIW seriously are largely confined to AFD/DRV (where they've become anally retentive process fetishests), two new powers have emerged: the Pro- and Anti- Userboxes camps.
An interesting thing to note about all of the wrangling is that most of it has been about "What is Wikipedia"; the Inclusionsionist/Deletionist debate was largely about whether we should have articles on schools or not, and the Userbox debate seems to be about whether user pages are free webspace where you can promote your political agendas or not.
I don't know if anyone ever took those things seriously, let alone to a factionalist partisan level. I know I didn't. I just joined the ADW because I *tend* to agree with the deletion of most articles I see on VfD/AfD, and even if I disagreed with the rest, I couldn't stomach the behaviour of the inclusionists. I *think* I later joined the AMW, because I think merging is a good compromise. I would have joined the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, but I think my "bipartisan" approach has already made it clear that I don't pre-judge articles. :p
Most hard-line partisan deletionists and inclusionists would be that way even if the ADW and AIW were never founded, IMO. I've never seen any reference to either of those in AfDs, because the vast majority of deletionists and inclusionists at least behaved politely to one another. Only a couple of rogues polluted the image of either side.
The userbox debate, on the other hand, has both sides assuming bad faith of the other, and those taking a stand who don't ABF or otherwise act like dicks are in the clear minority. It's the opposite of the deletionist/inclusionist debate. Most of the "anti-userboxes" people I've seen love to speedy/support speedying as many userboxes that might be deemed factionalist as possible, regardless of disagreement because "it's the right thing to do". Most of the "pro-userboxes" people I've seen will immediately yell "ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE" when an admin blocks a pro-userboxen fellow because they *think* the admin blocked the fellow for that reason, or when an admin speedies a userbox, regardless of whether it really is divisive. (Case in point: the deletion of the UDUIW userbox, which I already brought up on the list.)
The userbox debate has been particularly poisonous to the Wikipedian community because of how starkly the lines have been drawn, and how belligerently those on either side of the line have behaved towards one another. Whereas once the rogues were in the minority in the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum, it is now commonplace to see people yelling assumptions of bad faith and incivil remarks from the tree-tops, while the voices of those trying to be reasonable/civil on either side are drowned out.
I think those trying to speedy delete/keep all userboxes have got it wrong -- userboxes are not important in the long run to the fate of Wikipedia. What's important is reasoning with each other, assuming good faith, and spreading WikiLove. If we can't do this, we haven't just lost the "userbox war", we've lost the war to build an encyclopedia through the wiki process. And that, my friends, is where I believe we are headed. And please, don't cast the blame on "rogue deletionist admins" or "unacculturated newbies". Practically *everyone* involved in this dispute has been up to their neck in bad faith and WikiHate. I don't know about you, but if sacrificing userboxes (or sacrificing the deletion of divisive userboxes) is what it takes to restore good faith and WikiLove to the community, I'd take the latter over the former any second.
John
A-men! I also strongly support *either* not deleting (nearly) any userboxes *or* deleting (nearly) all of them, rather than the current horrible debacle. I'm hoping that Jimbo will take action on one of these directions.
Jesse Weinstein
On Mar 8, 2006, at 7:36 AM, John Lee wrote:
The userbox debate, on the other hand, has both sides assuming bad faith of the other, and those taking a stand who don't ABF or otherwise act like dicks are in the clear minority. It's the opposite of the deletionist/inclusionist debate. Most of the "anti-userboxes" people I've seen love to speedy/support speedying as many userboxes that might be deemed factionalist as possible, regardless of disagreement because "it's the right thing to do". Most of the "pro-userboxes" people I've seen will immediately yell "ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE" when an admin blocks a pro-userboxen fellow because they *think* the admin blocked the fellow for that reason, or when an admin speedies a userbox, regardless of whether it really is divisive. (Case in point: the deletion of the UDUIW userbox, which I already brought up on the list.)
The userbox debate has been particularly poisonous to the Wikipedian community because of how starkly the lines have been drawn, and how belligerently those on either side of the line have behaved towards one another. Whereas once the rogues were in the minority in the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum, it is now commonplace to see people yelling assumptions of bad faith and incivil remarks from the tree-tops, while the voices of those trying to be reasonable/civil on either side are drowned out.
I think those trying to speedy delete/keep all userboxes have got it wrong -- userboxes are not important in the long run to the fate of Wikipedia. What's important is reasoning with each other, assuming good faith, and spreading WikiLove. If we can't do this, we haven't just lost the "userbox war", we've lost the war to build an encyclopedia through the wiki process. And that, my friends, is where I believe we are headed. And please, don't cast the blame on "rogue deletionist admins" or "unacculturated newbies". Practically *everyone* involved in this dispute has been up to their neck in bad faith and WikiHate. I don't know about you, but if sacrificing userboxes (or sacrificing the deletion of divisive userboxes) is what it takes to restore good faith and WikiLove to the community, I'd take the latter over the former any second.
On 3/1/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Would we produce a great encyclopaedia if we all thought and worked the same way? I'm thinking that a certain degree of tension, conflict and competition helps us go beyond the banal. Some of the best features of Wikipedia are produced as a way of handling conflict. 3RR, for instance. It's silly, but it works.
We would definitely have more POV problems. Imagine a group of like-minded anti-abortionists sitting down to work, uninterrupted, on [[Abortion]]. You wouldn't have a single revert, edit war, personal attack, RfC or arbitration. But would the article end up with 73 references, and at least a passing resemblence of NPOV?
On the other hand, at a certain level, excessive conflict clearly does interfere with getting the job done. Just like how a workplace with no coffee breaks loses morale, a workplace with more coffee break time than work time is clearly even more inefficient.
Are we far from the happy medium?
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 3/1/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Would we produce a great encyclopaedia if we all thought and worked the same way? I'm thinking that a certain degree of
tension, conflict
and competition helps us go beyond the banal. Some of the best features of Wikipedia are produced as a way of handling
conflict. 3RR,
for instance. It's silly, but it works.
We would definitely have more POV problems. Imagine a group of like-minded anti-abortionists sitting down to work, uninterrupted, on [[Abortion]]. You wouldn't have a single revert, edit war, personal attack, RfC or arbitration. But would the article end up with 73 references, and at least a passing resemblence of NPOV?
On the other hand, at a certain level, excessive conflict clearly does interfere with getting the job done. Just like how a workplace with no coffee breaks loses morale, a workplace with more coffee break time than work time is clearly even more inefficient.
Are we far from the happy medium?
I'm not comfortable with the idea that we should promote even a small degree of conflict as a means to a better encyclopaedia. But we are in the happy position that conflict emerges naturally so it doesn't have to be promoted and mandated to a specific level. I think it is important that we recognise that we are never going to have a Wikipedia without conflict, and so we should find mechanisms to handle it without detracting from the overall quality of the thing.
Clearly if conflict escalates to the point where good articles and information are being blanked out because someone wants to score a point against an enemy, then the encyclopaedia is being harmed. Likewise, if good articles are left unwritten because the potential writers are too busy disputing amongst themselves, then we are falling short of optimum.
The userbox affair is a case in point. A lot of time and effort expended over what is essentially trivia.
I agree that conflict is inevitable, but I think that when it turns into incivility and personal abuse, then we have gone too far, and someone should step in and kick out the miscreant for a cooling off period.
Peter (Skyring)