http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback
So, have we come to the point where User Rights:Developer trumps User rights:Editor?
As pointed out on WP:AN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikiped..., the difference between the ratios was not statistically significant from last time to this time.
If wikipedia is going to devolve into a strictly hierarchical caste structure, the project will suffer immensely for it.
--Avi
On 10/01/2008, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback
So, have we come to the point where User Rights:Developer trumps User rights:Editor?
As pointed out on WP:AN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikiped... , the difference between the ratios was not statistically significant from last time to this time.
If wikipedia is going to devolve into a strictly hierarchical caste structure, the project will suffer immensely for it.
--Avi
-- en:User:Avraham
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) aviwiki@gmail.com Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think you should at least wait for something bad to happen before assuming it will.
To outline my strong objections to this in one place:
In itself: Negatively: no big deal: Vandals vandalise a little faster? but soon blocked anyway. Edit warriors can go faster? but warriors will war regardless.
Positively: maybe, at best, a little help Lots of people want it to be faster on the draw. However, since in most cases of spotted vandalism six people fight to roll it back, the benefit to the project is negligible. There is no backlog of reverted, yet identified, vandalism. The only conceivable benefit is that it keeps the plebs happy by equalising their 'success' rate in the revert race with admins - I suppose that's not a bad thing, but little to be excited by.
in term of process - admins granting it Negatively: *Increased instruction creed and policy pages *Time spend handling requests *New process - we already have a 'requests' page *Process for removing it will be required *Process for handling appeals against admin decisions will be required *Disgruntled users who are refused it *Disgruntled users who object to x being granted it *Conflicts between admins - wheel wars - ANI reports and arbitrations
People say, "how is this difference from block/unblock"? It isn't. But block/unblock disputes are already incredibly disruptive and clog up ANI and arbcom - and we agree blocking is useful.
Positively: can't think of any
Conclusion Very minor positives, huge negatives. Combine that with the dreadful disruptive and manipulative way this was rammed through and this is a considerable detriment to the project.
And I have ignored the argument that scripts make it redundant anyway for those who really want it.
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
And I have ignored the argument that scripts make it redundant anyway for those who really want it.
That is a poor argument, as scripts are not rollback...
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
To outline my strong objections to this in one place:
In itself: Negatively: no big deal: Vandals vandalise a little faster? but soon blocked anyway. Edit warriors can go faster? but warriors will war regardless.
Positively: maybe, at best, a little help Lots of people want it to be faster on the draw. However, since in most cases of spotted vandalism six people fight to roll it back, the benefit to the project is negligible. There is no backlog of reverted, yet identified, vandalism. The only conceivable benefit is that it keeps the plebs happy by equalising their 'success' rate in the revert race with admins - I suppose that's not a bad thing, but little to be excited by.
in term of process - admins granting it Negatively: *Increased instruction creed and policy pages *Time spend handling requests *New process - we already have a 'requests' page *Process for removing it will be required *Process for handling appeals against admin decisions will be required *Disgruntled users who are refused it *Disgruntled users who object to x being granted it *Conflicts between admins - wheel wars - ANI reports and arbitrations
If a user abuses the privilege remove it or block them under the current process. It is easy to get because it is also easy to remove. Having a huge removal and appeals process just for this is completely unnecessary due to its trivial nature. Wikipedia can be completely transparent and still not have an excessively large appeals tribunal for every decision. Having admins insist on spending large amounts of time interacting with those people who will inevitably continuously complain about small matters such as this may be a bigger issue.
If a wheel war happens then deal with it the same way all other wheel wars are dealt with. The worst in this case would be a grant or not grant, how is that harming anything?
It is a very small amount of time handling requests when you think about it. If you don't want to be involved in this then that is your choice though.
People say, "how is this difference from block/unblock"? It isn't. But block/unblock disputes are already incredibly disruptive and clog up ANI and arbcom - and we agree blocking is useful.
Some people think vandalism bots combined with generally available rollback procedures can make most blocking redundant...
All of your claims however could be put against any process on wikipedia.
Positively: can't think of any
Conclusion Very minor positives, huge negatives. Combine that with the dreadful disruptive and manipulative way this was rammed through and this is a considerable detriment to the project.
How is it practically a detriment to the project? If a group of admins object to others having partial powers which only they had in the past then they are entitled to put up a fuss but that doesn't mean the change was responsible. The admins putting up the fuss have to be in part responsible for their actions.
And I have ignored the argument that scripts make it redundant anyway for those who really want it.
Server loads decrease with the inbuilt php method as opposed to the javascript multi-GET/POST method. That definitely isn't to the detriment of the project if there are a non-trivial number of non-admins helping with vandalism related issues. Given the take up so far I suspect there are quite a few non-admins who don't want to bother dealing with block/unblock/delete/undelete issues but do want to be able to practically help out on articles more efficiently. You can't easily ignore its popularity so far in non-bureaucratic circles. The masses can only speak with their feet in a heirarchical society. If they can get it anyway why not at least reduce the server load for the large number who will have used the old slow resource hungry method anyway? Combined with people who will now spend less time patrolling their watchlists and more time making edits to articles I definitely see it as a good thing.
Peter
On 2008.01.10 09:37:20 +0000, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com scribbled 1.6K characters:
To outline my strong objections to this in one place:
In itself: Negatively: no big deal: Vandals vandalise a little faster? but soon blocked anyway. Edit warriors can go faster? but warriors will war regardless.
Positively: maybe, at best, a little help Lots of people want it to be faster on the draw. However, since in most cases of spotted vandalism six people fight to roll it back, the benefit to the project is negligible. There is no backlog of reverted, yet identified, vandalism. The only conceivable benefit is that it keeps the plebs happy by equalising their 'success' rate in the revert race with admins - I suppose that's not a bad thing, but little to be excited by.
...
I don't think we have vandalism covered that well.
I'm a quiet editor; I occasionally write articles and tweak things up, and I certainly don't go looking for vandalism. So why is it that I keep needing to rv and undo all the time, even when I've, say, come back from weeks of vacation and am catching up on diffs from days and days ago? I go through my last 500 contributions, and there's good 40 undos there, not counting all the manual reverts and more complicated cases. That doesn't seem to me like we have six people jumping on every instance of vandalism...
-- gwern import airframe Oates Meade Enforcers North BX Weekly b illuminati
gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we have vandalism covered that well.
I'm a quiet editor; I occasionally write articles and tweak things up, and I certainly don't go looking for vandalism. So why is it that I keep needing to rv and undo all the time, even when I've, say, come back from weeks of vacation and am catching up on diffs from days and days ago? I go through my last 500 contributions, and there's good 40 undos there, not counting all the manual reverts and more complicated cases. That doesn't seem to me like we have six people jumping on every instance of vandalism...
-- gwern import airframe Oates Meade Enforcers North BX Weekly b illuminati
But when you check your watchlist, you DO revert the vandalism you see. Yes, rollback would be an advantage to you - it would save you some time. But to the project it would not make a significant difference to the level of vandalism that doesn't get removed - the stuff that doesn't get removed is because no-one has noticed it, not because they did but couldn't revert it fast enough. That's my point.
There is little benefit to the project, other than keeping some editors happy. Of course, creating a little happiness is not a bad thing - but it is outweighed by far by the time that will be wasted on disputed granting, refusals and removals and the disarray of doing something with no settled consensus.
On another point. If 4 days is too short, why not 4 weeks?
On 10/01/2008, gwern0@gmail.com gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we have vandalism covered that well.
I'm a quiet editor; I occasionally write articles and tweak things up, and I certainly don't go looking for vandalism. So why is it that I keep needing to rv and undo all the time, even when I've, say, come back from weeks of vacation and am catching up on diffs from days and days ago?
Ditto.
Thing is, here, what we're doing is catching hitherto unidentified vandalism - it wasn't spotted so it wasn't reverted, and if it wasn't reverted at it doesn't make any difference as to whether it wasn't [reverted by undo] or wasn't [reverted manually] or wasn't [reverted with rollback].
Allowing people to revert faster doesn't help this problem. It helps with "we have identified vandalism *but not reverted it yet*", because it clears that backlog faster, but it won't do a whit for stuff they don't spot, either positively or negatively.
Avi wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback
So, have we come to the point where User Rights:Developer trumps User rights:Editor?
As pointed out on WP:AN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikiped..., the difference between the ratios was not statistically significant from last time to this time.
If wikipedia is going to devolve into a strictly hierarchical caste structure, the project will suffer immensely for it.
--Avi
Were the comments all exactly the same as last time? Were the concerns all exactly the same, in number and content? Was the proposal exactly the same last time? Were the comments against addressed exactly the same last time? etc etc etc
This isn't last time, and, consensus isn't ratios.
SQL wrote:
This isn't last time, and, consensus isn't ratios.
From WP:Consensus: "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome."
Does it really seem like that's happening here? I don't think so, and I think that outcome could have been predicted based on the ratios in those polls.
On Jan 9, 2008 9:16 PM, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback
So, have we come to the point where User Rights:Developer trumps User rights:Editor?
As pointed out on WP:AN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikiped... , the difference between the ratios was not statistically significant from last time to this time.
Consensus isn't a number. That said, given the virtual identical numerical results, some serious explanation is in order. To attempt to defend this after the fact is unacceptable.
-Durin
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
Consensus isn't a number. That said, given the virtual identical numerical results, some serious explanation is in order. To attempt to defend this after the fact is unacceptable.
-Durin _______________________________________________
Quite. I've often closed afds with results against the 'numbers' but in such cases I owe the community an explanation, and I need good reasons - and a willingness to defend them afterwards. And afds closings can be contested and overturned on drv.
So far, we've had no explanation: we're not even knowing who made the decision and there's no place to contest it, and no process to seek redress.
There's structurally something wrong with the fact that a community discussion is weighed (so badly) by an unidentified person who is not obviously accountable to the community.
The more important a decision is, and the more irreversible it will be, the more vital it is that the process is transparent. That's why we have easy processes for afd - assessed by an admim; more thorough ones for RfA - assessed by those chosen as crats'; a very open and careful one for choosing arbitrators - assessed by Jimbo himself. Yet, on a vital and divisive issue like this, we get a snap poll - assessed by who knows whom and why?
Not good.
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
Consensus isn't a number. That said, given the virtual identical
numerical
results, some serious explanation is in order. To attempt to defend this after
the
fact is unacceptable.
-Durin _______________________________________________
Quite. I've often closed afds with results against the 'numbers' but in such cases I owe the community an explanation, and I need good reasons - and a willingness to defend them afterwards. And afds closings can be contested and overturned on drv.
So far, we've had no explanation: we're not even knowing who made the decision and there's no place to contest it, and no process to seek redress.
There's structurally something wrong with the fact that a community discussion is weighed (so badly) by an unidentified person who is not obviously accountable to the community.
The more important a decision is, and the more irreversible it will be, the more vital it is that the process is transparent. That's why we have easy processes for afd - assessed by an admim; more thorough ones for RfA - assessed by those chosen as crats'; a very open and careful one for choosing arbitrators - assessed by Jimbo himself. Yet, on a vital and divisive issue like this, we get a snap poll - assessed by who knows whom and why?
Not good.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It was made quite clear in several places that it was JeLuf who switched it on.
My own opinion was to not switch it on, but I think that action was reasonable enough
On Jan 10, 2008 9:18 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
Consensus isn't a number. That said, given the virtual identical
numerical
results, some serious explanation is in order. To attempt to defend this after
the
fact is unacceptable.
-Durin _______________________________________________
Quite. I've often closed afds with results against the 'numbers' but in such cases I owe the community an explanation, and I need good reasons - and a willingness to defend them afterwards. And afds closings can be contested and overturned on drv.
So far, we've had no explanation: we're not even knowing who made the decision and there's no place to contest it, and no process to seek redress.
There's structurally something wrong with the fact that a community discussion is weighed (so badly) by an unidentified person who is not obviously accountable to the community.
The more important a decision is, and the more irreversible it will be, the more vital it is that the process is transparent. That's why we have easy processes for afd - assessed by an admim; more thorough ones for RfA - assessed by those chosen as crats'; a very open and careful one for choosing arbitrators - assessed by Jimbo himself. Yet, on a vital and divisive issue like this, we get a snap poll - assessed by who knows whom and why?
Not good.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It was made quite clear in several places that it was JeLuf who switched it on.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Has it been switched off again?
Ian [[User:Poeloq]] On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 09:48 -0500, David Goodman wrote:
My own opinion was to not switch it on, but I think that action was reasonable enough
On Jan 10, 2008 9:18 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
Consensus isn't a number. That said, given the virtual identical
numerical
results, some serious explanation is in order. To attempt to defend this after
the
fact is unacceptable.
-Durin _______________________________________________
Quite. I've often closed afds with results against the 'numbers' but in such cases I owe the community an explanation, and I need good reasons - and a willingness to defend them afterwards. And afds closings can be contested and overturned on drv.
So far, we've had no explanation: we're not even knowing who made the decision and there's no place to contest it, and no process to seek redress.
There's structurally something wrong with the fact that a community discussion is weighed (so badly) by an unidentified person who is not obviously accountable to the community.
The more important a decision is, and the more irreversible it will be, the more vital it is that the process is transparent. That's why we have easy processes for afd - assessed by an admim; more thorough ones for RfA - assessed by those chosen as crats'; a very open and careful one for choosing arbitrators - assessed by Jimbo himself. Yet, on a vital and divisive issue like this, we get a snap poll - assessed by who knows whom and why?
Not good.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It was made quite clear in several places that it was JeLuf who switched it on.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
Has it been switched off again?
Ian [[User:Poeloq]] On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 09:48 -0500, David Goodman wrote:
My own opinion was to not switch it on, but I think that action was reasonable enough
On Jan 10, 2008 9:18 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
Consensus isn't a number. That said, given the virtual identical
numerical
results, some serious explanation is in order. To attempt to defend this
after
the
fact is unacceptable.
-Durin _______________________________________________
Quite. I've often closed afds with results against the 'numbers' but
in
such cases I owe the community an explanation, and I need good
reasons -
and a willingness to defend them afterwards. And afds closings can
be
contested and overturned on drv.
So far, we've had no explanation: we're not even knowing who made
the
decision and there's no place to contest it, and no process to seek redress.
There's structurally something wrong with the fact that a community discussion is weighed (so badly) by an unidentified person who is
not
obviously accountable to the community.
The more important a decision is, and the more irreversible it will
be,
the more vital it is that the process is transparent. That's why we
have
easy processes for afd - assessed by an admim; more thorough ones
for
RfA - assessed by those chosen as crats'; a very open and careful
one
for choosing arbitrators - assessed by Jimbo himself. Yet, on a
vital
and divisive issue like this, we get a snap poll - assessed by who
knows
whom and why?
Not good.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It was made quite clear in several places that it was JeLuf who
switched
it on.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, and it shouldn't be either.
On Jan 10, 2008 10:08 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
Has it been switched off again?
No, and it shouldn't be either.
I'm not sure how to read this:
1. "It should not be, and that is my opinion."
It should be, and that is my opinion.
2. "It should not be, because there is no consensus to switch it off."
There was no consensus to turn it on either.
Or did you not mean either of these? (I'm not being sarcastic/abrasive, I really don't know what you're saying.)
On 1/10/08, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 10:08 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
Has it been switched off again?
No, and it shouldn't be either.
I'm not sure how to read this:
- "It should not be, and that is my opinion."
It should be, and that is my opinion.
- "It should not be, because there is no consensus to switch it off."
There was no consensus to turn it on either.
Or did you not mean either of these? (I'm not being sarcastic/abrasive, I really don't know what you're saying.)
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Depends on how you define consensus, Chris. When it comes to closing an AfD I certainly consider 2:1 to be a fairly strong consensus one way or the other, though of course it's always the respective validity of the arguments that counts.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:16:33 -0500 From: cdhowie@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] So, has the need for consensus in wikipedia been eliminated?
On Jan 10, 2008 10:08 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
Has it been switched off again?
No, and it shouldn't be either.
I'm not sure how to read this:
- "It should not be, and that is my opinion."
It should be, and that is my opinion.
- "It should not be, because there is no consensus to switch it off."
There was no consensus to turn it on either.
Or did you not mean either of these? (I'm not being sarcastic/abrasive, I really don't know what you're saying.)
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Who's friends with who and co-starred in what? http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
On Jan 10, 2008 10:22 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Depends on how you define consensus, Chris. When it comes to closing an AfD I certainly consider 2:1 to be a fairly strong consensus one way or the other, though of course it's always the respective validity of the arguments that counts.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
I certainly do not define consensus as "ongoing heated debate over a controversial change."
Be realistic - you can't get anything, be it major or minor, done on enwiki these days without heated debate. So many voices around that at least one will always raise itself in complaint.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:33:02 -0500 From: cdhowie@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] So, has the need for consensus in wikipedia been eliminated?
On Jan 10, 2008 10:22 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Depends on how you define consensus, Chris. When it comes to closing an AfD I certainly consider 2:1 to be a fairly strong consensus one way or the other, though of course it's always the respective validity of the arguments that counts.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
I certainly do not define consensus as "ongoing heated debate over a controversial change."
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463! http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
On Jan 10, 2008 10:38 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Be realistic - you can't get anything, be it major or minor, done on enwiki these days without heated debate. So many voices around that at least one will always raise itself in complaint.
I said that the presence of ongoing debate of this nature is not consensus. I did not say that debate precludes consensus, in fact it is crucial to forming it in cases like this. My point was simply that it's not only too early to gauge consensus, but we still don't have any explanation as to why whoever decided that consensus exists made that decision.
You may be in favor of this proposal (and that is perfectly ok with me) but I do not see how you could think consensus has been established.
On 10/01/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 10:08 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
Has it been switched off again?
No, and it shouldn't be either.
I'm not sure how to read this:
- "It should not be, and that is my opinion."
It should be, and that is my opinion.
- "It should not be, because there is no consensus to switch it off."
There was no consensus to turn it on either.
Or did you not mean either of these? (I'm not being sarcastic/abrasive, I really don't know what you're saying.)
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
People complaining rollback is a bad thing can at least wait until something bad actually happens. There was consensus for this change, in my view. Turning it off after all this would create even more drama.
On Jan 10, 2008 10:44 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
People complaining rollback is a bad thing can at least wait until something bad actually happens. There was consensus for this change, in my view. Turning it off after all this would create even more drama.
I never said it's a bad thing. I just don't think we need a process to get it. Everybody should get it at the autoconfirm level, and if they abuse it we just block their account. As I have said before, if we cannot trust someone with "rollback" we cannot trust them with "edit this page."
We do *not* need a new permissions bit, we do *not* need another process, and we do *not* need another clique of users. Just let people use it.
And that is why I voted oppose. Not because I think it is a bad idea, but because I didn't like the way it was proposed.
On 10/01/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 10:44 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
People complaining rollback is a bad thing can at least wait until something bad actually happens. There was consensus for this change, in my view. Turning it off after all this would create even more drama.
I never said it's a bad thing. I just don't think we need a process to get it. Everybody should get it at the autoconfirm level, and if they abuse it we just block their account. As I have said before, if we cannot trust someone with "rollback" we cannot trust them with "edit this page."
We do *not* need a new permissions bit, we do *not* need another process, and we do *not* need another clique of users. Just let people use it.
And that is why I voted oppose. Not because I think it is a bad idea, but because I didn't like the way it was proposed.
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Everyone getting it is clearly a bad idea - many users have already been rejected, and they would have had to have been blocked if they'd got it automatically. Blocking is not the way to solve it. And your idea doesn't remove the idea of a "clique" - your idea is "innocent until proven guilty" approach - but as we've seen, it simply wouldn't work.
On Jan 10, 2008 10:58 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote: [snip]
Blocking is not the way to solve it.
Yea, if we used blocking to deal with people who refuse to behave correctly then we wouldn't have per user/per page word bans, per user protection, admin delegated upload rights, page move, and template editing rights.
Just using blocking to throw out bad people would clearly break our established practice of admin micromanagement of every user action.
And your idea doesn't remove the idea of a "clique" - your idea is "innocent until proven guilty" approach - but as we've seen, it simply wouldn't work.
Right! If we followed his idea we'd have a website that everyone could edit. That could never work. At all. Nope. Here at Wikipedia we make everyone go through an approval process before they can edit. Good thing we have a special editorial group selected for their ability to choose others.
(Not that I'm opposed to the idea of having (more) user assigned user rights ... but for rollback when even anons get undo? come on!)
On 10/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 10:58 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote: [snip]
Blocking is not the way to solve it.
Yea, if we used blocking to deal with people who refuse to behave correctly then we wouldn't have per user/per page word bans, per user protection, admin delegated upload rights, page move, and template editing rights.
Just using blocking to throw out bad people would clearly break our established practice of admin micromanagement of every user action.
And your idea doesn't remove the idea of a "clique" - your idea is "innocent until proven
guilty"
approach - but as we've seen, it simply wouldn't work.
Right! If we followed his idea we'd have a website that everyone could edit. That could never work. At all. Nope. Here at Wikipedia we make everyone go through an approval process before they can edit. Good thing we have a special editorial group selected for their ability to choose others.
(Not that I'm opposed to the idea of having (more) user assigned user rights ... but for rollback when even anons get undo? come on!)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You are over-exaggerating my comments. Do you really expect a four day old account to know how to use rollback appropriately? I certainly don't, and I think having a scarred block log for messing up with a rather powerful tool that until the other day only admins could have is a little unfair to the user.
If we followed his idea where everyone got rollback, that would be the situation. I didn't say that they couldn't edit, nor did his idea say that they could. This is about *rollback*, not general right to edit. And undo is not rollback.
On Jan 10, 2008 11:19 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
You are over-exaggerating my comments. Do you really expect a four day old account to know how to use rollback appropriately? I certainly don't, and I think having a scarred block log for messing up with a rather powerful tool that until the other day only admins could have is a little unfair to the user.
How about it's an option buried in preferences then? If it's off (default) then rollback links aren't shown. When they become more experienced someone can direct them to turn it on.
And btw, I don't see how a four day old editor would know how to edit properly either, at least they wouldn't know the MOS well enough to follow every detail. Different cases, yes, but still, we're giving a hell of a lot more power away by letting people edit the content of pages than just roll back versions.
(This is the kind of discussion that should have taken place on-wiki, *before* this thing was implemented.)
On 10/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
You are over-exaggerating my comments. Do you really expect a four day old account to know how to use rollback appropriately? I certainly don't, and I think having a scarred block log for messing up with a rather powerful tool that until the other day only admins could have is a little unfair to the user. If we followed his idea where everyone got rollback, that would be the situation. I didn't say that they couldn't edit, nor did his idea say that they could. This is about *rollback*, not general right to edit. And undo is not rollback.
Historically, Wikipedia's gotten everything it has and everything it is from being as painfully open as possible and only closing off as and when it proves necessary. (This is why cutting off anon page creation upset so many people.)
So: open rollback to autoconfirmed, then lock down only if necessary.
- d.
David's comment makes sense to me. Forcing admins to review the background of everyone who wants rollback is a waste of time and is assigning them a responsibility for which they have no background. If you want everyone (in general) to have it, turn it on for everyone. If someone abuses it, revert and warn them like any other vandalism and then switch it off.
In the mean time, figure out why 65% was considered consensus after a short poll during the holidays.
Nathan
On 10/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
David's comment makes sense to me. Forcing admins to review the background of everyone who wants rollback is a waste of time and is assigning them a responsibility for which they have no background. If you want everyone (in general) to have it, turn it on for everyone. If someone abuses it, revert and warn them like any other vandalism and then switch it off.
In the mean time, figure out why 65% was considered consensus after a short poll during the holidays.
...when it wasn't considered consensus last time the issue was discussed.
David Gerard wrote:
Historically, Wikipedia's gotten everything it has and everything it is from being as painfully open as possible and only closing off as and when it proves necessary. (This is why cutting off anon page creation upset so many people.)
So: open rollback to autoconfirmed, then lock down only if necessary.
- d.
Absolutely.
Vandals will vandalise with or without it - we simply block them
Edit warriors will edit war with or without it.
The only thing the admin power to grant gives us is a thing to debate and cause drama. Process is evolving already, I've just been bitch slapped for granting the rights without filling in and archiving the right forms and we are only 24 hours in. And already people are counting edits and saying "too many of your edits are to your own userspace" - it's RfA all over again, all for a pointless bauble.
For the record, I will enable rollback to any user (exempting obvious trolls) on reasonable request - they abuse it, we turn it off.
Gah!
On Jan 10, 2008 11:19 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
You are over-exaggerating my comments.
Huh?
Do you really expect a four day old account to know how to use rollback appropriately? I certainly don't, and I think having a scarred block log for messing up with a rather powerful tool that until the other day only admins could have is a little unfair to the user.
Well... four days is plenty of time to read the instructions. But, no.. I don't expect them to know.
I also don't expect them to know how to follow Wikipedia's copyright policy (and based on behavior, they clearly don't) nor do I expect them to understand the myriad of requirements in the manual of style, the external linking policy, or a zillion other rules ...
It would be nice if they understood Neutral Point of View, but most newbies certainly do not appear to do so...
And page moves, ... page naming is some of the most complex, poorly documented, and long-term controversial of all the issues on Wikipedia. (Why is the article called German and not Deutschland? Côte d'Ivoire and not the Ivory Coast?). It would be a rare newbie indeed who understood that stuff.
The vulgarities of template syntax? I'd guess that most *admins* don't understand more than the most basic aspects of that.
... and it doesn't stop there.
If we followed his idea where everyone got rollback, that would be the situation. I didn't say that they couldn't edit, nor did his idea say that they could. This is about *rollback*, not general right to edit. And undo is not rollback.
In the context of a typical four day old user what is the difference in the disruptive potential between undo and rollback? I agree that rollback is more useful for high speed vandalism, but thats not the kind of disruption that comes from simple newbie ignorance.
On Jan 10, 2008 10:58 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Everyone getting it is clearly a bad idea - many users have already been rejected, and they would have had to have been blocked if they'd got it automatically.
All the better to weed out the edit warriors.
Blocking is not the way to solve it. And your idea doesn't remove the idea of a "clique"
Yes it does, there would not be another tier of user between editors and Jimbo.
your idea is "innocent until proven guilty" approach - but as we've seen, it simply wouldn't work.
{{fact}}
How is that approach any different from how we let anons edit most of our pages?
On 10/01/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 10:58 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
All the better to weed out the edit warriors.
Eugh. AGF please! A four day old editor wouldn't even know the meaning of edit war, let alone what they were doing. It's not their fault the tool would be forced upon them.
Yes it does, there would not be another tier of user between editors and
Jimbo.
There would be a "tier", those with rollback. It's the same, except they aren't granted it.
{{fact}}
How is that approach any different from how we let anons edit most of our pages?
This is about rollback, not editing in general. Rollback is a more powerful tool than the edit button.
--
Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 10, 2008 11:23 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
All the better to weed out the edit warriors.
Eugh. AGF please! A four day old editor wouldn't even know the meaning of edit war, let alone what they were doing. It's not their fault the tool would be forced upon them.
I didn't mean block off the bat. We'd handle it the same way we handle any other type of vandalism. Revert and warn. If it keeps happening, block.
Yes it does, there would not be another tier of user between editors and Jimbo.
There would be a "tier", those with rollback. It's the same, except they aren't granted it.
... what?
{{fact}}
How is that approach any different from how we let anons edit most of
our
pages?
This is about rollback, not editing in general. Rollback is a more powerful tool than the edit button.
I disagree. Edit lets you do anything. Rollback lets you do one specific thing.
On 10/01/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
There would be a "tier", those with rollback. It's the same, except they aren't granted it.
... what?
Users will have rollback automatically, right? Then we have users with rollback, and those without. Creates a tier.
This is about rollback, not editing in general. Rollback is a more powerful tool than the edit button.
I disagree. Edit lets you do anything. Rollback lets you do one specific thing.
Edit lets you do one specific thing: edit.
--
Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 10, 2008 11:37 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
There would be a "tier", those with rollback. It's the same, except
they
aren't granted it.
... what?
Users will have rollback automatically, right? Then we have users with rollback, and those without. Creates a tier.
A tier we already have: autoconfirm. In other words, if you can edit semi-protected pages then you can rollback.
This is about rollback, not editing in general. Rollback is a more powerful tool than the edit button.
I disagree. Edit lets you do anything. Rollback lets you do one
specific
thing.
Edit lets you do one specific thing: edit.
Which rollback happens to be a special case of.
On Jan 10, 2008 11:37 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
I disagree. Edit lets you do anything. Rollback lets you do one specific thing.
Edit lets you do one specific thing: edit.
Edit is functionally equivalent to rollback. You can use edit to make a commentless reversion to any prior version. Rollback accomplishes the same thing, only faster.
On Jan 10, 2008 11:40 AM, gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we have vandalism covered that well.
I'm a quiet editor; I occasionally write articles and tweak things up, and I certainly don't go looking for vandalism. So why is it that I keep needing to rv and undo all the time, even when I've, say, come back from weeks of vacation and am catching up on diffs from days and days ago? I go through my last 500 contributions, and there's good 40 undos there, not counting all the manual reverts and more complicated cases. That doesn't seem to me like we have six people jumping on every instance of vandalism...
I think it would be most accurate to say that most vandalism that more than one person jumps on has six people jumping on it. The energy behind fixing vandalism is probably more than adequate, but the coverage is spotty.
Increased rollback rights may reduce the minimum repair time, but I would not expect it to help the median or maximum at all.
Alex, the more important point here is not the goodness or badness of rollback, it is the gross disregard for the wikipedia community that JuLef (sp?) had by implementing this procedure in the face of significant clear and present opposition. Even if this were the best thing since sliced bread, which I do not believe it is, its implementation opens the door to further marginalization of the community processes that have allowed wikipedia to survive its exponential growth.
So, shall we start promoting more sysops based on bureaucratic whim? Shall we proceed to delete all userpage quotations on a lark without discussion? How about admins speedy deleting articles with minor sourcing issues, claiming A7 without recourse for a discussion?
This is a gross violation of process, and there isn't even a good option for the community to respond as there are extremely few people who can access the wikicode itself.
Even when Jimbo wanted to implement credentialing standards after the EssJay issue, the community had an open and frank discussion about it _without and before_ implementation by fiat.
This developer has exhibited extremely poor judgment and a gross disregard for the WIkipedia community, and his actions should be reversed, if for no other reason than commitment to our core policies that major changes require consensus.
--Avi
On 10/01/2008, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Alex, the more important point here is not the goodness or badness of rollback, it is the gross disregard for the wikipedia community that JuLef (sp?) had by implementing this procedure in the face of significant clear and present opposition. Even if this were the best thing since sliced bread, which I do not believe it is, its implementation opens the door to further marginalization of the community processes that have allowed wikipedia to survive its exponential growth.
So, shall we start promoting more sysops based on bureaucratic whim? Shall we proceed to delete all userpage quotations on a lark without discussion? How about admins speedy deleting articles with minor sourcing issues, claiming A7 without recourse for a discussion?
This is a gross violation of process, and there isn't even a good option for the community to respond as there are extremely few people who can access the wikicode itself.
Even when Jimbo wanted to implement credentialing standards after the EssJay issue, the community had an open and frank discussion about it _without and before_ implementation by fiat.
This developer has exhibited extremely poor judgment and a gross disregard for the WIkipedia community, and his actions should be reversed, if for no other reason than commitment to our core policies that major changes require consensus.
--Avi
-- en:User:Avraham
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) aviwiki@gmail.com Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There will be opposition to everything proposed on enwiki. I'd be just as annoyed as you if the consensus was, say 55%, much less than what is normally considered to be so. People are always scared of new things appearing, but that's how it is. I honestly can't see why those in opposition can't give this a chance, and complain only when something goes wrong. We didn't ask for undo did we? It just happened. There's probably other things too.
On Jan 10, 2008 11:58 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
There will be opposition to everything proposed on enwiki.
Thats not strictly true. Lots of things happen, even broadly impactful things, without significant opposition.
I'd be just as annoyed as you if the consensus was, say 55%, much less than what is normally considered to be so. People are always scared of new things appearing, but that's how it is.
Why is 65% enough but 55% is not? If we accept "people are always scared of new things", why isn't 33% enough? Why isn't 5 really experienced people enough.. if it's just for the purpose of *trying* something so that we don't have to be afraid and can make an objective decision on the merits of the action?
I honestly can't see why those in opposition can't give this a chance, and complain only when something goes wrong.
Okay, but something has already gone wrong: There are thousands and thousands of good experienced users who do not have rollback.
There are many users who should have rollback but whom probably never will because they do not want to figure out how to ask for it, or get involved with righs flagging power games, just like there are many people who do no want adminship on enwp.
On Jan 10, 2008 12:02 PM, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, Gregory, excellent points, reminiscent of Clay Shirkey.
Whatever the (sub)-optimal solution, one person making a decision that on the face of it contradicts the decision made in a near identical situation last time; and not allowing at least a months discussion; and this person not being accountable him or herself to someone else, is _not_ the answer.
Fair enough. I wasn't attempting to argue that this case was handled correctly, just pointing out that the inverse of the handling (continuing to do nothing in the absence of evidence of harm, and with a non-trivial amount of support) is probably not correct.
On Jan 10, 2008 11:58 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
There will be opposition to everything proposed on enwiki. I'd be just as annoyed as you if the consensus was, say 55%, much less than what is normally considered to be so. People are always scared of new things appearing, but that's how it is. I honestly can't see why those in opposition can't give this a chance, and complain only when something goes wrong.
We are upset because it was a gross violation of process, not because "we lost and you won." Some of the people who supported the proposal are just as upset about this. As far as I am concerned, something did go wrong, something far more important than rollback.
We didn't ask for undo did we? It just happened. There's probably other things too.
Clicking undo is exactly the same thing as clicking the "edit" link on the left half of a diff, except that an edit summary is filled in for you. That said, I would have liked to see community discussion about that before it was implemented, too.
On Jan 10, 2008 11:51 AM, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Alex, the more important point here is not the goodness or badness of rollback, it is the gross disregard for the wikipedia community that JuLef (sp?) had by implementing this procedure in the face of significant clear and present opposition.
[snip]
Not taking an action is itself an action.
The status quo is not that special.
Consensus is strongly preferred, sure, but why is it that you would think a non-consensus minority-willed preservation of the status quo is right, when a non-consensus majority-willed change is wrong?
If we reach a point where the user base is so large and diverse that many important issues can not achieve a clear consensus by numerical standards, what then? Shall Wikipedia be forever frozen in whatever state it was already in by historical chance or by past unilateral decisions? Is that really a road to success?
I said that giving admins the right to grant rollback would inevitably lead to process and instruction creep. Well, I didn't believe it would start this early.
I was determined that if we were going to have this, it would not turn into another RfA, so I started granting requests made on the new "Rollback requests" page, using a very low threshhold: "unless you are evidently trouble, you get it - we can remove it, if you turn out to be"
I am now being called a troll because I didn't make the request with {{done}}, which is apparently what I "need to do" so that a bot can archive the requests. Which is necessary for some unspecified reason. (Yes, I've asked "why?") So now we are going to have an archive and very precise rules as how to grant rollback (down to the last tick). It is already being said that we should not grant it through "backchannels" like e-mail. Unless people say "NO", we are soon going to have another RfA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback#Archive
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I said that giving admins the right to grant rollback would inevitably lead to process and instruction creep. Well, I didn't believe it would start this early.
I was determined that if we were going to have this, it would not turn into another RfA, so I started granting requests made on the new "Rollback requests" page, using a very low threshhold: "unless you are evidently trouble, you get it - we can remove it, if you turn out to be"
I am now being called a troll because I didn't make the request with {{done}}, which is apparently what I "need to do" so that a bot can archive the requests. Which is necessary for some unspecified reason. (Yes, I've asked "why?") So now we are going to have an archive and very precise rules as how to grant rollback (down to the last tick). It is already being said that we should not grant it through "backchannels" like e-mail. Unless people say "NO", we are soon going to have another RfA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback#Archive
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Where were you called a troll then?
I am now being called a troll because I didn't make the request with {{done}}, which is apparently what I "need to do" so that a bot can archive the requests. Which is necessary for some unspecified reason. (Yes, I've asked "why?") So now we are going to have an archive and very precise rules as how to grant rollback (down to the last tick). It is already being said that we should not grant it through "backchannels" like e-mail. Unless people say "NO", we are soon going to have another RfA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback#Archive
Where were you called a troll then?
I was wondering that... All I see is some discussion about technicalities, there is no need to take it so personally...
I think its funny that the page was protected, and unprotected, and if you look in the rights log admins are granting and then ungranting rights...
It doesn't look like a strict review is being done, there are no guidelines as to what appropriate history should look like, what to tell people who are denied (can they ask again? how long do they wait?), how long someone should be up for review (I've seen a day, an hour, 24 hours, a "few hours" etc.).
More amusing is that every time someone suggests a new rule or requirement, everyone agrees! But only until someone else suggests something different, and then everyone agrees to that to. Just because it isn't a big deal doesn't mean you shouldn't at least attempt to be organized or clear about how it will work.
I agree that technically the devs didn't approve or disapprove any procedures or points of view of this feature - it was simply enabled, and we're free to build around it. What the discussion should have focused on more closely was what happens when it is enabled. Since that didn't happen, its a free for all. And as was pointed out, its a sinkhole for admin attention (especially since apparently granting rights requires seconding and thirding, which is ironic).
Nathan
On Jan 10, 2008 2:07 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I am now being called a troll because I didn't make the request with {{done}}, which is apparently what I "need to do" so that a bot can archive the requests. Which is necessary for some unspecified reason. (Yes, I've asked "why?") So now we are going to have an archive and very precise rules as how to grant rollback (down to the last tick). It is already being said that we should not grant it through "backchannels" like e-mail. Unless people say "NO", we are soon going to have another RfA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback#Archive
Where were you called a troll then?
I was wondering that... All I see is some discussion about technicalities, there is no need to take it so personally...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It doesn't look like a strict review is being done, there are no guidelines as to what appropriate history should look like, what to tell people who are denied (can they ask again? how long do they wait?), how long someone should be up for review (I've seen a day, an hour, 24 hours, a "few hours" etc.).
I think that's intentional to reduce bureaucracy. The way I understand it, the idea is that a single admin is enough to promote, there is no need to give anyone else a chance to review. If an admin decides, in their judgement (which is considered trustworthy, otherwise they wouldn't have passed RfA), that the person can be trusted with rollback, then they can give it to them. There isn't meant to be a complicated and detailed review process.
Really? I don't think any part of it is "intentional." What it is is unplanned. Based on the way the talkpage is going, I can pretty much guarantee you that in a relatively short period of time some approval guidelines will be established. First its the most basic elements of process (approve/deny templates, archiving, wait period) and then it moves on from there. People will find problems that bother them, others will suggest possible solutions, someone will implement it and then you will need consensus (65%) to remove unnecessary solutions to problems that aren't problems.
On Jan 10, 2008 2:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't look like a strict review is being done, there are no guidelines as to what appropriate history should look like, what to tell people who are denied (can they ask again? how long do they wait?), how long someone should be up for review (I've seen a day, an hour, 24 hours, a "few hours" etc.).
I think that's intentional to reduce bureaucracy. The way I understand it, the idea is that a single admin is enough to promote, there is no need to give anyone else a chance to review. If an admin decides, in their judgement (which is considered trustworthy, otherwise they wouldn't have passed RfA), that the person can be trusted with rollback, then they can give it to them. There isn't meant to be a complicated and detailed review process.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I said that giving admins the right to grant rollback would inevitably lead to process and instruction creep. Well, I didn't believe it would start this early.
I was determined that if we were going to have this, it would not turn into another RfA, so I started granting requests made on the new "Rollback requests" page, using a very low threshhold: "unless you are evidently trouble, you get it - we can remove it, if you turn out to be"
I am now being called a troll because I didn't make the request with {{done}}, which is apparently what I "need to do" so that a bot can archive the requests. Which is necessary for some unspecified reason. (Yes, I've asked "why?") So now we are going to have an archive and very precise rules as how to grant rollback (down to the last tick). It is already being said that we should not grant it through "backchannels" like e-mail. Unless people say "NO", we are soon going to have another RfA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback#Archive
Where were you called a troll then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollba... very clearly implies "we don't want your sort round here". It was not a helpful contribution.
James Farrar wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I said that giving admins the right to grant rollback would inevitably lead to process and instruction creep. Well, I didn't believe it would start this early.
I was determined that if we were going to have this, it would not turn into another RfA, so I started granting requests made on the new "Rollback requests" page, using a very low threshhold: "unless you are evidently trouble, you get it - we can remove it, if you turn out to be"
I am now being called a troll because I didn't make the request with {{done}}, which is apparently what I "need to do" so that a bot can archive the requests. Which is necessary for some unspecified reason. (Yes, I've asked "why?") So now we are going to have an archive and very precise rules as how to grant rollback (down to the last tick). It is already being said that we should not grant it through "backchannels" like e-mail. Unless people say "NO", we are soon going to have another RfA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback#Archive
Where were you called a troll then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollba... very clearly implies "we don't want your sort round here". It was not a helpful contribution.
I probably got annoyed by that, and by an IRC badgering for not toeing the line. Then there was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow#Wikipedia:Requests_for_ro...
Sorry, I may have slightly overreacted. No-one called me a troll, exactly. But there are certainly WP:OWN issues here, and it matters because if this isn't resisted NOW, then it will settle in as a set of rules, and you will be told (as I already have) that you must conform or show consensus to do otherwise.
Again sorry for implying a personal attack where there was none. But I do feel that there is badgering to toe the line.
Another question I have is - why were the people for this so determined?
I don't get why:
1) it has to be rushed through a quick as can be poll 2) it has to be implemented without consensus 3) granting of rights is proceeding at lightning speed and anyone saying "Hold on, slow down" is pushed away 4) the page was unprotected after it was protected so the issues could be resolved.
Then to top it off in my mind, the main proponents of this proposal have been pretty unfriendly and unresponsive to criticism of the process. Instead of discussing the problems and trying to address them, they largely ignored criticism until the poll was complete and then reacted derisively to criticism afterwards. If it shouldn't have been implemented to begin with, arguments that "Well its too late now, just leave it and see if it works" don't hold up. Now suddenly there has to be proof that it is an ongoing problem in order for criticism to be seen as valid?
I'm not against the tool being spread out. I just think the way it was done is ridiculous.
On Jan 10, 2008 2:20 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not against the tool being spread out. I just think the way it was done is ridiculous.
Rather, the way it *is* being done. I almost want to chalk it up to holiday boredom.
On 10/01/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I said that giving admins the right to grant rollback would inevitably lead to process and instruction creep. Well, I didn't believe it would start this early.
I was determined that if we were going to have this, it would not turn into another RfA, so I started granting requests made on the new "Rollback requests" page, using a very low threshhold: "unless you are evidently trouble, you get it - we can remove it, if you turn out to
be"
I am now being called a troll because I didn't make the request with {{done}}, which is apparently what I "need to do" so that a bot can archive the requests. Which is necessary for some unspecified reason. (Yes, I've asked "why?") So now we are going to have an archive and
very
precise rules as how to grant rollback (down to the last tick). It is already being said that we should not grant it through "backchannels" like e-mail. Unless people say "NO", we are soon going to have another RfA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback#Archive
Where were you called a troll then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollba... very clearly implies "we don't want your sort round here". It was not a helpful contribution.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I wasn't implying that. I was saying that if he doesn't like the idea of rollback, instead of unproductively complaining on the talk page about each and every minor problem, he (and we all) should perhaps go and do something else for a little while. I'm going to go and work on an article. Thanks,
On 10/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Where were you called a troll then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollba... very clearly implies "we don't want your sort round here". It was not a helpful contribution.
I wasn't implying that. I was saying that if he doesn't like the idea of rollback, instead of unproductively complaining on the talk page about each and every minor problem, he (and we all) should perhaps go and do something else for a little while.
And thus allow it to become established by default?
On 10/01/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Where were you called a troll then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollba...
very clearly implies "we don't want your sort round here". It was not a helpful contribution.
I wasn't implying that. I was saying that if he doesn't like the idea of rollback, instead of unproductively complaining on the talk page about
each
and every minor problem, he (and we all) should perhaps go and do
something
else for a little while.
And thus allow it to become established by default?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, I'm suggesting people are getting a little too worked up over something very little.
OK, I am not going to visit the requests page anymore, people with alternative outlooks are obviously unwelcome.
I have never had objection to rollback per se. My objection was always that its utility to the project was marginal at best, and well outweighed by the inevitable process and b'cracy people would create.
The way this was introduced was disruptive in the extreme, but now we have it, it is unlikely to go away. The best solution would be to get agreement to give it automatically in some way ( <irony> perhaps another dev will do that - I mean why listen to people too scared to allow change </irony>)
Meanwhile we need to resist the emergence of unnecessary process, and make sure this is given out as easily as possible to all reasonable people who request it.
Have a process page with as many rules as you wish, as long as admins can continue to use the good judgement they were chosen for, and make this thing really "no big deal".
To that end, I have created:
[[Category:Wikipedia admins willing to grant rollback requests]]
and would encourage as many admins as possible to add themselves to it. Let's keep instruction creep at bay, without warring over the page.
Doc
It's hysterical watching this whole process. Untold legions of electrons marching to their oblivion in the name of..well, I don't think I know any better than anyone else.
Prediction; this process will become hopeless bound up in process and bureaucracy, all the while having people saying "give it a chance!" Then when it's obvious how blatant of a failure it is, it will be so entrenched that it will be impossible to do away with or reform.
Case in point; RfA. What was originally a light process, intended to grant privileges to just about all comers has turned into a ridiculously stupid bureaucratic nightmare with an unimaginable amount of bureaucracy and rancor. What was previously done just via the mailing list has turned into La Brea Tar Pits.
This thing has been live for just mere days, and already people are scrambling to contain instruction creep. Guess what? You can't, in the long wrong. Mark my words. And all of this for something that can be done with scripts, or can be done using the "undo" link on edits.
Watching all of this stuff is very comedic expose on human nature and the follies therein.
You don't need a process. You don't need a category. You don't need an archive bot. You don't need to tag anything with {{done}}. You don't need approval. You don't need admins to grant this. Give rollback to everyone, and block the repeat abusers. No need for additional process.
-Durin
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
You don't need a process. You don't need a category. You don't need an archive bot. You don't need to tag anything with {{done}}. You don't need approval. You don't need admins to grant this. Give rollback to everyone, and block the repeat abusers. No need for additional process.
-Durin
Absolutely.
However, it has always been impossible to get agreement on non-admin rollback. Hence the status quo of having none. A clever little coup changed the status quo to this b'cratic idiocy. The chances of getting a consensus to change from this new status-quo are nil. So RfA jnr. - with every admin a crat - here we come.
But, you know what? I'm not fighting this anymore. The cabal that so well organised this coup win (and maybe they deserve to for their tenacity), and, for the sake of peace and blood pressure, the rest of us must now do what they've instructed us to do: we must shut the hell up and get over it.
I will even start to use the standardised {{done}} on the bot-archived process page as per their instructions.
My last post on this subject (I promise)
Doc
On Jan 11, 2008 9:15 AM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
You don't need a process. You don't need a category. You don't need an archive bot. You don't need to tag anything with {{done}}. You don't need approval. You don't need admins to grant this. Give rollback to everyone, and block the repeat abusers. No need for additional process.
-Durin
Absolutely.
However, it has always been impossible to get agreement on non-admin rollback. Hence the status quo of having none. A clever little coup changed the status quo to this b'cratic idiocy. The chances of getting a consensus to change from this new status-quo are nil. So RfA jnr. - with every admin a crat - here we come.
But, you know what? I'm not fighting this anymore. The cabal that so well organised this coup win (and maybe they deserve to for their tenacity), and, for the sake of peace and blood pressure, the rest of us must now do what they've instructed us to do: we must shut the hell up and get over it.
I will even start to use the standardised {{done}} on the bot-archived process page as per their instructions.
My last post on this subject (I promise)
Doc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If you want to change something, the answer pretty obvious - just do it, and be civil, and establish precedent. We've seen it happen with rollback - if admins start handing it out without the process, there'll be no process. Don't try to set up prescriptive rules - for whatever stupid reason, Wikipedia operates on the premise you can do whatever you like, and if nobody stops you, that's the rule.
So maintain that cat what says we'll give you rollback if you ask nicely, and let those who enjoy bureaucracy more than encyclopaedia writing make a little bureaucracy, and just hand out rollback to anyone who asks. And both will be established mechanisms and undetrenchable. In the meantime, anyone who wants that long bureaucracy, ask at WP:RFR or whatever. Anyone who wants it to be no big deal, ask me or anyone else in Cat:Admins what will give you rollback. Don't try to force the dust to settle, that never works.
Cheers WilyD
This entire smoking mountain of bullshit is what happens when people ride roughshod over basic principles to "get something done" that they think ought to be done. Sometimes you can argue its necessary- there is a case for doing that with something really important, but with rollback?
I think the two or three admins who got this trainwreck rolling ought to be ashamed at what they have wrought, because it was entirely predictable. The dev who flicked this on should flick it back off until the controversy is resolved, and if that dev doesn't want to then he or she should be told to do it anyway. Its just pointless, and there is no reason to have it if it is going to cause such a big damn to-do.
Nathan
Don't say I didn't warn you. Already we've got bureaucratic nightmares erupting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollba...
"Given the volume of people being granted rollback, I think we need a formal "Requests for rollback review" to deal with issues like the above,
so that we can discuss and build consensus on whether someone's rollback tool should be removed. As I said, we also need a proper, 3-day discussion process before granting rollback in the first place."
This is so funny it's painful.
On 11/01/2008, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
Don't say I didn't warn you. Already we've got bureaucratic nightmares erupting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollba...
"Given the volume of people being granted rollback, I think we need a formal "Requests for rollback review" to deal with issues like the above,
so that we can discuss and build consensus on whether someone's rollback tool should be removed. As I said, we also need a proper, 3-day discussion process before granting rollback in the first place."
This is so funny it's painful. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yeah, Doc glasgow created a page like that already.
Maybe the best thing to do would be to move on from arguing about the rollback proposal and develop some bureaucracy that governs how proposals like this should move forward in the future. As folks have been saying, the feature itself isn't a big deal. Since admins can grant it, and there are a lot of admins, they should be able to grant it through RfR or any other way they want. The issue was the proposal and implementation process (or lack of process) so we should skip right into debating that instead.
Nathan
The only way we could do that, of course, is to impliment some meta-bureaucracy that governs how proposals to impliment bureaucracies in the future. And that, of course, would need rules in place on how we could do that, and evaluate any consensuses. And ...
Well, I hope nobody's doing anything for a while.
WilyD
On Jan 11, 2008 12:09 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the best thing to do would be to move on from arguing about the rollback proposal and develop some bureaucracy that governs how proposals like this should move forward in the future. As folks have been saying, the feature itself isn't a big deal. Since admins can grant it, and there are a lot of admins, they should be able to grant it through RfR or any other way they want. The issue was the proposal and implementation process (or lack of process) so we should skip right into debating that instead.
Nathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Right, but Doc created it to make a point about instruction creep. The fact that now it's actually happening really says something about our lack of preparation.
- GC On Jan 11, 2008 10:31 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2008, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
Don't say I didn't warn you. Already we've got bureaucratic nightmares erupting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollba...
"Given the volume of people being granted rollback, I think we need a formal "Requests for rollback review" to deal with issues like the above,
so that we can discuss and build consensus on whether someone's rollback tool should be removed. As I said, we also need a proper, 3-day discussion process before granting rollback in the first
place."
This is so funny it's painful. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yeah, Doc glasgow created a page like that already.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/01/2008, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but Doc created it to make a point about instruction creep. The fact that now it's actually happening really says something about our lack of preparation.
- GC
On Jan 11, 2008 10:31 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2008, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
Don't say I didn't warn you. Already we've got bureaucratic nightmares erupting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollba...
"Given the volume of people being granted rollback, I think we need
a
formal "Requests for rollback review" to deal with issues like the above,
so that we can discuss and build consensus on whether someone's rollback tool should be removed. As I said, we also need a proper, 3-day discussion process before granting rollback in the first
place."
This is so funny it's painful. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yeah, Doc glasgow created a page like that already.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
His WP:POINT creation is nothing like what is happening though (some recent developments, however, have made me question RfR's suitability).
Majorly wrote:
His WP:POINT creation is nothing like what is happening though (some recent developments, however, have made me question RfR's suitability).
This - and the standards for refusal, really proves my point. Unbelievable - mini-RfA, and even more arbitrary and editcountis driven!
Read it for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Denied
On 11/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Majorly wrote:
His WP:POINT creation is nothing like what is happening though (some
recent
developments, however, have made me question RfR's suitability).
This - and the standards for refusal, really proves my point. Unbelievable - mini-RfA, and even more arbitrary and editcountis driven!
Read it for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Denied
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No thanks. I already said I disagreed with that.
I suggest everyone read Anthere's latest post on WP:AN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noti...
Unfortunately Anthere's "you guys govern yourself - the dev is a good guy" post misses the point.
*If* we are to govern ourselves, then *we* need to define what is and is not sufficient mandate for policy changes in our community. Most sane people would agree that a 66% support rate on a dubious and confused eight day poll performed when half the community was on holiday is simply not our method of deciding stuff like this.
But the developer took it on himself to decide what was an was not consensus in our community - and accepted the advice of the rather determined promoter of the policy. It is not possible for this community to govern itself while outsiders make such decisions and yet all outside bodies refuse to hear any appeal against them.
Now, as I say, this fikning policy (admin right to grant) is now a done deal. But what we need now is to make sure this can never happen again. My response to Anthere's patronising call "go on take decisions yourselves. Running the project is your job" is: "yes please, now will you please let us in future?"
Doc
On 11/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Now, as I say, this fikning policy (admin right to grant) is now a done deal. But what we need now is to make sure this can never happen again. My response to Anthere's patronising call "go on take decisions yourselves. Running the project is your job" is: "yes please, now will you please let us in future?"
Indeed. The devs also need to learn that "majority" is not "consensus".
On Friday 11 January 2008 16:08, doc wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_not iceboard&diff=183698882&oldid=183693933
Unfortunately Anthere's "you guys govern yourself - the dev is a good guy" post misses the point.
*If* we are to govern ourselves, then *we* need to define what is and is not sufficient mandate for policy changes in our community.
No, we don't.
Remember, what is called "policy" on Wikipedia is not prescriptive. It is merely a description of what has happened in the past in response to certain situations, to provide a guide as to what to expect in similar situations in the future.
There's no need to *explicitly* change "policy"; simply start acting differently and "policy" will follow.
On Friday 11 January 2008 16:08, doc wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_not iceboard&diff=183698882&oldid=183693933
Unfortunately Anthere's "you guys govern yourself - the dev is a good guy" post misses the point.
*If* we are to govern ourselves, then *we* need to define what is and is not sufficient mandate for policy changes in our community.
No, we don't.
Remember, what is called "policy" on Wikipedia is not prescriptive. It is merely a description of what has happened in the past in response to certain situations, to provide a guide as to what to expect in similar situations in the future.
There's no need to *explicitly* change "policy"; simply start acting differently and "policy" will follow.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
There's no need to *explicitly* change "policy"; simply start acting differently and "policy" will follow.
But that's inapplicable here. How exactly am I, a lowly editor and admin, supposed to start "acting differently" in such a way that the ability to grant individual users rollback capabilities goes away again? It makes no sense.
Give it to anyone who asks who block record you can read in half an hour or less. ;)
WilyD
On Jan 12, 2008 2:24 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
There's no need to *explicitly* change "policy"; simply start acting differently and "policy" will follow.
But that's inapplicable here. How exactly am I, a lowly editor and admin, supposed to start "acting differently" in such a way that the ability to grant individual users rollback capabilities goes away again? It makes no sense.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Saturday 12 January 2008 13:05, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Wily D wrote:
Give it to anyone who asks who block record you can read in half an hour or less. ;)
I think my criterion will be "can find my userpage and post a coherent request on it".
Were I an admin, mine would be "User has discovered the English Wikipedia."
Seriously, this whole requiring explicit approval is a crock.
On Jan 11, 2008 5:08 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
*If* we are to govern ourselves, then *we* need to define what is and is not sufficient mandate for policy changes in our community.
Absolutely agreed.
Most sane people would agree that a 66% support rate on a dubious and confused eight day poll performed when half the community was on holiday is simply not our method of deciding stuff like this.
Probably, but would most sane people agree that the poll used was dubious and confused? And what does it matter what "most sane people" would agree on?
But the developer took it on himself to decide what was an was not consensus in our community - and accepted the advice of the rather determined promoter of the policy.
Developers have no other choice but to decide what to implement and what not to implement. I quote the great philosopher Neil Peart when I say "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice".
It is not possible for this community to govern itself while outsiders make such decisions and yet all outside bodies refuse to hear any appeal against them.
Now, as I say, this fikning policy (admin right to grant) is now a done deal. But what we need now is to make sure this can never happen again.
Wikipedia has needed a constitution for a long time now. Top-down or bottom-up, that's the only way to stop "this" from happening again. The board seems to have rejected the top-down approach, as has the arb com. But then, the community seems to have rejected the bottom-up one.
Anthony wrote:
Wikipedia has needed a constitution for a long time now. Top-down or bottom-up, that's the only way to stop "this" from happening again. The board seems to have rejected the top-down approach, as has the arb com. But then, the community seems to have rejected the bottom-up one.
I like very much this summary :-)
Anthere
Florence Devouard wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Wikipedia has needed a constitution for a long time now. Top-down or bottom-up, that's the only way to stop "this" from happening again. The board seems to have rejected the top-down approach, as has the arb com. But then, the community seems to have rejected the bottom-up one.
I like very much this summary :-)
Yes, and it's the "seems to have" that's the problem. Saying in definite terms that it has rejected the bottom-up approach would be too decisive. ;-)
I'm not sure about the idea of a constitution. The danger with constitution writing is to end up with something like the EU proposal that was rejected by the voters.
Ec
The reason that constitution was rejected - or a major reason among many - is that it was hundreds of pages long and endlessly convoluted, to the point where it would take centuries of litigation to really determine what anything meant. The obvious conclusion for others interested in writing 'constitutions' or governing documents is that it should be broadly construed and short. This, it turns out, isn't all that hard to do.
Regarding this particular incident, the time for re-evaluating the implementation of rollback and the process for future similar changes is now. I would like to see someone, anyone, take some leadership here. There is a reason that societies are hierarchical - without leadership, nothing gets done.
Nathan
On 1/14/08, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The reason that constitution was rejected - or a major reason among many - is that it was hundreds of pages long and endlessly convoluted, to the point where it would take centuries of litigation to really determine what anything meant. The obvious conclusion for others interested in writing 'constitutions' or governing documents is that it should be broadly construed and short. This, it turns out, isn't all that hard to do.
Regarding this particular incident, the time for re-evaluating the implementation of rollback and the process for future similar changes is now. I would like to see someone, anyone, take some leadership here. There is a reason that societies are hierarchical - without leadership, nothing gets done.
Well, whatever you do, never look for leadership from these quarters.
I will snipe from the sidelines, but only when somebody tries mightily to harm the overall vision of our "thing". (and no, I can't and don't want to define it any further than that, unless you bring in very serious instruments to bear on my physical body (and I have some minor experience in resisting even that))
I personally consider leadership a necessary evil, which has to be protected, but never given untrammeled liberty to exercise itself.
A case in point is Jimbos (I am being charitable here) flailing pointlessly in trying to define how the arbcom, the foundation and the community are supposed to structure their relations, ambits of influence etc. very recently in connection to the rollback teacup tempest.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 14/01/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I'm not sure about the idea of a constitution. The danger with constitution writing is to end up with something like the EU proposal that was rejected by the voters.
...and that was then implemented by the governments anyway!
We should not have had to hold a discussion on this. Nobody is being forced at gunpoint to acquire or use rollback powers. If it weren't for the abject timidity of the developers, my guess is that we would have uncontroversially had rollback for all registered users since 2005.
Far from being rushed through in a six-day debate as Doc appears to believe, the discussion on this practical and sensible extension of software functionality has dragged on needlessly for years, as perfect an example of instruction creep as it would be possible to ask for.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
We should not have had to hold a discussion on this. Nobody is being forced at gunpoint to acquire or use rollback powers. If it weren't for the abject timidity of the developers, my guess is that we would have uncontroversially had rollback for all registered users since 2005.
Far from being rushed through in a six-day debate as Doc appears to believe, the discussion on this practical and sensible extension of software functionality has dragged on needlessly for years, as perfect an example of instruction creep as it would be possible to ask for.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I say again, rollback is NOT the problem. And dismissing rollback for the trivia it is, is beside the point.
The problem is saddling us with the silly distraction of making every admin into a mini-bureaucrat empowered to make-rollbacker and unmake rollbacker. That's already leading to instruction creep, little cabals, and people getting uppity. Rollback is too trivial for the type infrastructure and debate that admin-grants necessarily creates.
Ending the instruction creep is simple - switch it on for all auto-confirmed users. Or, alternatively, allow all users a preference to switch it on or off for themselves.
doc wrote:
Ending the instruction creep is simple - switch it on for all auto-confirmed users. Or, alternatively, allow all users a preference to switch it on or off for themselves.
I would support either of those alternatives... or the one that has been forced on us by the current design of the feature, in which we have to create and maintain and enforce a policy about who gets it or not. I would support the second option if that is the will of the community, whereas I am getting the feeling that it is not.
But I do not support that this sort of feature, which is clearly not unanimously wanted at all, should be decided by the developers or the Foundation (Anthere) rather than the community.
JeLuF did the right thing, given the limited knowledge that he had. He's a good guy and I am highly confident he has no interest at all in usurping the traditional decisionmaking processes of English Wikipedia. He saw a poll, it looked like a solid majority, and he assumed that meant he was supposed to carry out the will of the community. Not a problem there, except...
The English Wikipedia has traditionally had better ways of making decisions than voting.
So, that's what we're going to do. The only problem at the moment is that there seem to be about a half-dozen different similarly named pages which purport to be a discussion or poll about this, and there is not the simple clarity that we need in order to be able to move forward rationally. This will surely be cleared up soon.
--Jimbo
On 1/14/08, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia has traditionally had better ways of making decisions than voting.
Yes. One of the major ones has been "our supreme clueful dictator makes a good decision".
In the absence of copious free time on the part of our supreme clueful dictator, suggestions for new strategies are very welcome.
Steve
On 1/14/08, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
auto-confirmed users. Or, alternatively, allow all users a preference to switch it on or off for themselves.
I like this. Those that need it will find it. Those that don't need it will be spared the temptation.
Steve
On Jan 11, 2008 4:46 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
No thanks. I already said I disagreed with that.
I suggest everyone read Anthere's latest post on WP:AN.
It would be helpful to people to include a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noti...
(otherwise anyone reading this more than a few hours from now might end up fishing through the archives)
I thought her final point was interesting:
My suggestion right now would be to say that the feature turned on by JeLuF is NOT critical. Give it a try. See if it is helpful, or to the contrary, bring in more troubles than it solves them. And revisit the issue in 3 months if necessary (yeah, vote again). Give it a try, and move on.
If the argument for this is "give it a try", then why are we not extending rollback to autoconfirmed users?
Doing so appears to also be widely supported (in subsequent polls, it was not offered as an option the poll used to justify the most recent change). Moreover, extending rollback broadly is consistent with the current handling of other features which are slightly prone to disruptive use (move, edit semi-protected), yet still more conservative than other parallel features (undo, and edit itself both cover a lot of the same space as rollback).
Finally, requiring admin approval undeniably has a lot of overhead and promotes dispute (which we've seen in practice already), it can only really be justified based on the reasoning that anything less authoritarian would lead to significant misbehavior or vandalism. That such things would happen is far from a universally held view. If we make it automagic, and learn that it causes problems, we could always back off to admin approval (with its associated overheads). If we just make it admin approval based we will be subject to overhead and never learn if the simpler approach would work better.
Clearly there need to be a way to break status quo and test new things even in the face of uncertainty, but simply taking the path of the most aggressive parties, as seems to have been done here, is probably not a good solution. At the end of the day all the yelling about consensus seems misguided to me. The overwhelming majority of users don't know or don't care about this poll. Most large polls on enwp these days tell us almost nothing about consensus, instead they tell us much about which extremest group is larger, better organized, or more angry.
So throw up another poll about extending it to autoconfirmed - you are right as far as I can tell that it enjoys some support, but I doubt that the folks invested in the original poll or involved in the RfR granting process at this point will support it.
I think this whole thing could have been avoided if the common sense notion that polls over the holidays are a bad idea had occurred to the folks involved in setting it up. Two or three guys rushed it, and here we are. Still, I think the bureaucracy concerns can be largely allayed by either making it an autoconfirm right or allowing admins to just grant it - with no more process than a block, which is certainly a bigger deal.
Nathan
On Jan 11, 2008 5:57 PM, David Carson carson63000@gmail.com wrote:
I boggle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/De...
*jaw drops*
Johnleemk
On 12/01/2008, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 5:57 PM, David Carson carson63000@gmail.com wrote:
I boggle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/De...
*jaw drops*
Johnleemk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, that is pretty dismaying to see.
But Anthere's point is that this makes no difference whatsoever. Let those who want to bother with it do so. I have rollback, and the advantage is trivial. ~~~~
On Jan 12, 2008 9:52 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 12/01/2008, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 5:57 PM, David Carson carson63000@gmail.com wrote:
I boggle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/De...
*jaw drops*
Johnleemk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, that is pretty dismaying to see.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
But Anthere's point is that this makes no difference whatsoever. Let those who want to bother with it do so. I have rollback, and the advantage is trivial. ~~~~
Rollback is nothing - not even worth talking about. Have it, don't have it, don't care. Admins having another tool to war over - especially one that creates something so pointless - is the deal. The process, disputes, pissed off users, than emanate from this silly tool - that's the deal.
Those who say "rollback is nothing" shrug, are missing the point. The point is that something that's has such a potential for division and distraction was created over the heads of sane objections on the basis of a ridiculously timed poll.
Now, if some rogue dev wants to turn it on for all autoconfirmed users at this stage..............I'll send flowers and chocolates
On 1/11/08, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 5:57 PM, David Carson carson63000@gmail.com wrote:
I boggle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/De...
*jaw drops*
Rather than making the bloody modest assumption that this user of 2+ years will not devastate the project by reverting 0.375 seconds faster, it's prudent to bitch-slap sincere applicants for their apparent clerical errors.
Let's add a bloated series of "standard questions", for each candidate. Let's oppose self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger.
This is the house that Jack built. Please set fire to it.
—C.W.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/De...
I noticed that... Questionable logic, to say the least. Anthony
User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 14/01/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/11/08, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 5:57 PM, David Carson carson63000@gmail.com wrote:
I boggle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/De...
*jaw drops*
Rather than making the bloody modest assumption that this user of 2+ years will not devastate the project by reverting 0.375 seconds faster, it's prudent to bitch-slap sincere applicants for their apparent clerical errors.
Let's add a bloated series of "standard questions", for each candidate. Let's oppose self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger.
This is the house that Jack built. Please set fire to it.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
An they said it wouldn't lead to process wonking and lame admin dispute?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback&am...
On 14/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
An they said it wouldn't lead to process wonking and lame admin dispute?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback&am...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Where did they say this?
Nothing on Wikipedia comes without some sort of dispute and process :)
On Jan 14, 2008 6:21 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Where did they say this? Nothing on Wikipedia comes without some sort of dispute and process :)
That is untrue, and it would be a huge sign of failure if it were true.
On 14/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 6:21 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Where did they say this? Nothing on Wikipedia comes without some sort of dispute and process :)
That is untrue, and it would be a huge sign of failure if it were true.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Then name one process that is without controversy.
All the mentions of the disputed status of rollback have been removed, and these arguments that coincidentally take place in the requests of some users are becoming the norm. Since no one has formulated a concrete policy (most people don't want to, and those that do can't agree) folks just bicker about their own personal policy. Its funny because its irrelevant - no one is obligated to use that page for rollback.
Majorly wrote:
Then name one process that is without controversy.
None. And that is why process should be kept to an absolute minimum.
There's a hundred thousand article urgently in need of scrutiny and debate, trying up our brightest users in this waste of time is positively criminal. But then it always was an inevitable outcome of this way of giving rollback.
On 15/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Majorly wrote:
Then name one process that is without controversy.
None. And that is why process should be kept to an absolute minimum.
There's a hundred thousand article urgently in need of scrutiny and debate, trying up our brightest users in this waste of time is positively criminal. But then it always was an inevitable outcome of this way of giving rollback.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We aren't tying them up. They are choosing to participate in it. They are free to walk away at any time. They choose to stay.
On 14/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Then name one process that is without controversy.
DYK tends to be pretty combat free as is Picture of the day.
On 15/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Then name one process that is without controversy.
DYK tends to be pretty combat free as is Picture of the day.
Heh. We had a little farce a week ago when someone scheduled an American political photo for the day before the New Hampshire primaries without realising...
DYK has a lot of low-grade mumbling, but benefits from a set of clear if arcane rules and a good flow of new blood - lots of editors passing through, and a general atmosphere of transience, means it keeps active and doesn't stagnate.
ITN, on the other hand, is routinely argued over.
On 15/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Then name one process that is without controversy.
DYK tends to be pretty combat free as is Picture of the day.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wrong. There's problems with DYK, ranging from the variety of topics shown, and the declining of particular articles nominated (sound familiar?) Often it's so backlogged, nominations have to be left out, which is unfair.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 6:21 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Nothing on Wikipedia comes without some sort of dispute and process :)
That is untrue, and it would be a huge sign of failure if it were true.
See, this is a perfect example of culture clash.
Greg describes the old-guard view, the way things were when Wikipedia was young and on its way from zero to one million articles, the way things should (we wish, we wish) still be.
Alex, on the other hand, is pointing out the way things apparently *are* in today's brave new Wikipedia.
Today's brave new Wikipedia, of course, is the one in which the vast majority of editors -- and admins -- weren't around during those halcyon old days and would probably be regarded by the old guard as ignorant newbies at best, and renegade idiots at worst. But whether we like it or not, they're running the asylum now, except when they're reacting badly to the old guard cabal's increasingly ham-handed attempts to reassert control.
On Jan 14, 2008 7:01 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 6:21 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Nothing on Wikipedia comes without some sort of dispute and process :)
That is untrue, and it would be a huge sign of failure if it were true.
See, this is a perfect example of culture clash.
Greg describes the old-guard view, the way things were when Wikipedia was young and on its way from zero to one million articles, the way things should (we wish, we wish) still be.
Alex, on the other hand, is pointing out the way things apparently *are* in today's brave new Wikipedia.
Today's brave new Wikipedia, of course, is the one in which the vast majority of editors -- and admins -- weren't around during those halcyon old days and would probably be regarded by the old guard as ignorant newbies at best, and renegade idiots at worst. But whether we like it or not, they're running the asylum now, except when they're reacting badly to the old guard cabal's increasingly ham-handed attempts to reassert control.
How true. I have long given up attempts to change things; it's simply not worth the effort. People are drawn to shiny meaningless brownie points and shows of process; men are governed by baubles, to badly paraphrase Napoleon. We could counteract this urge as a small community, but as we've grown larger, it's become simply physically impossible.
Of course, the cost of this greater complexity is the alienation of the old guard, which made substantial contributions in an era when less silly people dominated the project. As I have removed myself from the trifles of the new guard, so have I largely removed myself from everyday editing and participation in the project. But the project goes on; it lives in spite of us leaving.
I see no reason to complain too much about this development. It's completely pointless to have all this red tape springing up, and a lot of the things we have now would neither be around nor necessary if we had wiser and/or more sensible people dominating the project and its discourse - this is true. But I think there is no way that we are choosing between the present outcome and an ideal outcome of minimal bureaucracy. There is no way to return to the good old days (which some people hasten to point out might not have been so good); I'm not happy about the status quo, but because there's no way to fix it, I see no purpose in complaining too much.
Johnleemk
On 1/14/08, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Today's brave new Wikipedia...
And just what's so brave about it? If I've noticed any change at all, it's a sudden, abject lack of boldness on all fronts.
—C.W.
On 15/01/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/14/08, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Today's brave new Wikipedia...
And just what's so brave about it? If I've noticed any change at all, it's a sudden, abject lack of boldness on all fronts.
But process is important!
Process is important in Hell, and to Hell. Some demons minimize the importance of process, using such slogans as "Product over Process" or pointing to the policy "Brutally Sodomise All Rules With Mocking Scornful Laughter". But process is essential to the creation of the inferno. Process is a fundamental tool for carrying out Satanic consensus, and for allowing a very large number of demons to work together on a collaborative inferno. Process is also the mechanism by which demons can trust that others are playing no more unfairly than they can get away with, that the rules do not suddenly change, nor are they different for some privileged demons. Poor process or no process ultimately fails to harm the product.
There are many different processes in Hell. These include the various torture, speedy disembowelment, and barbed-penis sodomy review processes; the various dispute exacerbation processes; the Request for Unholy Host process; various processes for policy formation and alteration; and the Featured Sinner candidate process. There are processes more specific to particular areas of Hell, such as that for proposing imp types, and processes internal to various subareas of the inferno. There are also more informal processes such as those that happen in discussion on a particular sinner, when which hideous horror or style of taunting is most appropriate for a given sinner can be settled among the interested demons.
Most of these processes depend on demonic consensus in some form. Some of them ultimately rely on votes, or something like votes, to determine that consensus on a particular issue. But even during a "vote" most of them not only permit but encourage discussion in addition to simple "Yes" or "No" votes, in hopes that people of one view can persuade those of another, or that a compromise can emerge, and in either case a true consensus, not just a majority or super-majority, can emerge.
And of course, Satan himself will from time to time just tell you what's fucking what.
It is no accident that the basic mechanism for demeaning civil rights is called "Due Process of Bureaucracy". Indeed, in most bureaucratic systems the effective mechanisms for stifling rights and freedoms are essentially procedural ones.
Of course, Hell is not a government, nor is its primary purpose to be a social or communitarian experiment. But many of the same problems arise whenever lots of entities interact, some of them with strongly opposing views. The basically procedural methods that have been used to solve these problems when running governments often must apply, with suitable variations, in an inferno such as Hell — and this only becomes more true as such an inferno becomes larger and more influential.
Sometimes a process can be like unto a pitchfork in the buttocks. Some processes demand that demons go through several steps to achieve a result. Some can be cumbersome or time-consuming. Some do not deal with particular situations as rapidly as a demon might wish. Sometimes going through the process seems unlikely to give the result that a demon desires. In all these cases, there is a temptation, sometimes a strong temptation, to act unilaterally, to simply "fuck" the problem as one sees it. Often this is technically possible in Hell. Sometimes many demons will support it.
The problem with yielding to this temptation is that it affects the overall structure of the functionality of Hell. It throws sand in the gears of the inferno. When demons see others acting outside of process, they may be convinced that they ought to do the same; or they may be convinced that the dark whispering voices and views will get no respect or consideration. If all demons act outside of process, there is no process, no organization to our efforts. Then we do not have a functional collaborative inferno; we have some hippie bullshit. Which is no way to run an inferno.
The primary goal of Hell is the damnation of sinners, and any process is only a means to that end. Even the community of Hellions, important as it is to some, is only a means to that end.
Often following a process takes more time and effort in a particular case than acting unilaterally. Sometimes following a process will give a less distended sinner's anus in a particular case. But frequently acting outside of process causes strong and widespread dissatisfaction, which consumes far more time and effort than any saved by avoiding the process in the first place.
Even in the more numerous cases where no great uproar results, actions outside of process still tend to damage the trust of individual imps and demons in the institution of Hell, and to damage the community. And the community is the essential tool in the damnation of the sinners. Without the community, there is no one to brutally sodomise them, and there is no way to organize the brutal sodomy. Without the community, there is no reason for anyone to undertake any of the many needed but unglamorous tasks on which the damnation of the sinners depends.
Process need not be inflexible — most Hell processes and policies can be changed if the community, or the relevant section of it, wants to change them. Many processes allow for exceptions or alternate routes in particular cases or circumstances; such exceptions can be added to processes that do not have them.
In a small group there is little need for structure or process. When five people work on a sinner, little structure and no formal process may be required. When five thousand work together on a substantial group of sinners, there must be some structure or the inferno will collapse. While Hell intentionally has relatively little structure, it must have some to continue in a productive way. Processes, formal and informal, are some of the key elements in that structure.
During the early days of Hell, few processes were needed to maintain its essential structure. Many — at first most — demons knew each other or rapidly came to know each other. Issues could be resolved by informal discussion or casual fights to the death with tooth and claw, with little need for any other process.
As Hell has grown, more process has developed. While many demons still know or know of each other, there are many overlapping sub-communities, and no one knows all or even most of the most accomplished torturers. Demons have strong and differing views about policy and damnation issues. Process, often formal process, is needed to allow issues to be resolved in ways that all can accept as reasonable, even when individuals strongly disagree with particular results. Unilateral action tends to subvert that acceptance, and lead to a "me-first" or a "my way or the highway" attitude to the inferno — even or especially when demons sincerely believe that they are acting for the enhancement of the inferno.
Action outside of process is particularly dangerous when it involves powers restricted to the Unholy Host, or knowledge available only to long-established demons. This tends to create at least the impression of a caste system. No one wants to be on the bottom of a caste system, and such perceptions reduce the motivation for demons to contribute.
For all these reasons, demons and particularly the Unholy Host ought to adhere to and use existing processes, and resist the temptation to act outside of process, other than in truly emergency situations. If a process is not good, think enough of fellow Hellions to engage the problem and propose a change to it; don't just ignore the process.
- d.
Jesus, nice essay.
On Jan 15, 2008 3:39 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/01/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/14/08, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Today's brave new Wikipedia...
And just what's so brave about it? If I've noticed any change at all, it's a sudden, abject lack of boldness on all fronts.
But process is important!
Process is important in Hell, and to Hell. Some demons minimize the importance of process, using such slogans as "Product over Process" or pointing to the policy "Brutally Sodomise All Rules With Mocking Scornful Laughter". But process is essential to the creation of the inferno. Process is a fundamental tool for carrying out Satanic consensus, and for allowing a very large number of demons to work together on a collaborative inferno. Process is also the mechanism by which demons can trust that others are playing no more unfairly than they can get away with, that the rules do not suddenly change, nor are they different for some privileged demons. Poor process or no process ultimately fails to harm the product.
There are many different processes in Hell. These include the various torture, speedy disembowelment, and barbed-penis sodomy review processes; the various dispute exacerbation processes; the Request for Unholy Host process; various processes for policy formation and alteration; and the Featured Sinner candidate process. There are processes more specific to particular areas of Hell, such as that for proposing imp types, and processes internal to various subareas of the inferno. There are also more informal processes such as those that happen in discussion on a particular sinner, when which hideous horror or style of taunting is most appropriate for a given sinner can be settled among the interested demons.
Most of these processes depend on demonic consensus in some form. Some of them ultimately rely on votes, or something like votes, to determine that consensus on a particular issue. But even during a "vote" most of them not only permit but encourage discussion in addition to simple "Yes" or "No" votes, in hopes that people of one view can persuade those of another, or that a compromise can emerge, and in either case a true consensus, not just a majority or super-majority, can emerge.
And of course, Satan himself will from time to time just tell you what's fucking what.
It is no accident that the basic mechanism for demeaning civil rights is called "Due Process of Bureaucracy". Indeed, in most bureaucratic systems the effective mechanisms for stifling rights and freedoms are essentially procedural ones.
Of course, Hell is not a government, nor is its primary purpose to be a social or communitarian experiment. But many of the same problems arise whenever lots of entities interact, some of them with strongly opposing views. The basically procedural methods that have been used to solve these problems when running governments often must apply, with suitable variations, in an inferno such as Hell — and this only becomes more true as such an inferno becomes larger and more influential.
Sometimes a process can be like unto a pitchfork in the buttocks. Some processes demand that demons go through several steps to achieve a result. Some can be cumbersome or time-consuming. Some do not deal with particular situations as rapidly as a demon might wish. Sometimes going through the process seems unlikely to give the result that a demon desires. In all these cases, there is a temptation, sometimes a strong temptation, to act unilaterally, to simply "fuck" the problem as one sees it. Often this is technically possible in Hell. Sometimes many demons will support it.
The problem with yielding to this temptation is that it affects the overall structure of the functionality of Hell. It throws sand in the gears of the inferno. When demons see others acting outside of process, they may be convinced that they ought to do the same; or they may be convinced that the dark whispering voices and views will get no respect or consideration. If all demons act outside of process, there is no process, no organization to our efforts. Then we do not have a functional collaborative inferno; we have some hippie bullshit. Which is no way to run an inferno.
The primary goal of Hell is the damnation of sinners, and any process is only a means to that end. Even the community of Hellions, important as it is to some, is only a means to that end.
Often following a process takes more time and effort in a particular case than acting unilaterally. Sometimes following a process will give a less distended sinner's anus in a particular case. But frequently acting outside of process causes strong and widespread dissatisfaction, which consumes far more time and effort than any saved by avoiding the process in the first place.
Even in the more numerous cases where no great uproar results, actions outside of process still tend to damage the trust of individual imps and demons in the institution of Hell, and to damage the community. And the community is the essential tool in the damnation of the sinners. Without the community, there is no one to brutally sodomise them, and there is no way to organize the brutal sodomy. Without the community, there is no reason for anyone to undertake any of the many needed but unglamorous tasks on which the damnation of the sinners depends.
Process need not be inflexible — most Hell processes and policies can be changed if the community, or the relevant section of it, wants to change them. Many processes allow for exceptions or alternate routes in particular cases or circumstances; such exceptions can be added to processes that do not have them.
In a small group there is little need for structure or process. When five people work on a sinner, little structure and no formal process may be required. When five thousand work together on a substantial group of sinners, there must be some structure or the inferno will collapse. While Hell intentionally has relatively little structure, it must have some to continue in a productive way. Processes, formal and informal, are some of the key elements in that structure.
During the early days of Hell, few processes were needed to maintain its essential structure. Many — at first most — demons knew each other or rapidly came to know each other. Issues could be resolved by informal discussion or casual fights to the death with tooth and claw, with little need for any other process.
As Hell has grown, more process has developed. While many demons still know or know of each other, there are many overlapping sub-communities, and no one knows all or even most of the most accomplished torturers. Demons have strong and differing views about policy and damnation issues. Process, often formal process, is needed to allow issues to be resolved in ways that all can accept as reasonable, even when individuals strongly disagree with particular results. Unilateral action tends to subvert that acceptance, and lead to a "me-first" or a "my way or the highway" attitude to the inferno — even or especially when demons sincerely believe that they are acting for the enhancement of the inferno.
Action outside of process is particularly dangerous when it involves powers restricted to the Unholy Host, or knowledge available only to long-established demons. This tends to create at least the impression of a caste system. No one wants to be on the bottom of a caste system, and such perceptions reduce the motivation for demons to contribute.
For all these reasons, demons and particularly the Unholy Host ought to adhere to and use existing processes, and resist the temptation to act outside of process, other than in truly emergency situations. If a process is not good, think enough of fellow Hellions to engage the problem and propose a change to it; don't just ignore the process.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 15, 2008 2:39 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/01/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote: But process is important!
Process is important in Hell, and to Hell. Some demons minimize the importance of process, using such slogans as "Product over Process" or pointing to the policy
That better be on your blog soon :)
Good thing we aren't paying you by the word or else you'd have a check worth 1,258 of 'em . (and no, I didn't manually count them)
On Jan 15, 2008 3:39 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/01/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/14/08, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Today's brave new Wikipedia...
And just what's so brave about it? If I've noticed any change at all, it's a sudden, abject lack of boldness on all fronts.
But process is important!
Process is important in Hell, and to Hell. Some demons minimize the importance of process, using such slogans as "Product over Process" or pointing to the policy "Brutally Sodomise All Rules With Mocking Scornful Laughter". But process is essential to the creation of the inferno. Process is a fundamental tool for carrying out Satanic consensus, and for allowing a very large number of demons to work together on a collaborative inferno. Process is also the mechanism by which demons can trust that others are playing no more unfairly than they can get away with, that the rules do not suddenly change, nor are they different for some privileged demons. Poor process or no process ultimately fails to harm the product.
There are many different processes in Hell. These include the various torture, speedy disembowelment, and barbed-penis sodomy review processes; the various dispute exacerbation processes; the Request for Unholy Host process; various processes for policy formation and alteration; and the Featured Sinner candidate process. There are processes more specific to particular areas of Hell, such as that for proposing imp types, and processes internal to various subareas of the inferno. There are also more informal processes such as those that happen in discussion on a particular sinner, when which hideous horror or style of taunting is most appropriate for a given sinner can be settled among the interested demons.
Most of these processes depend on demonic consensus in some form. Some of them ultimately rely on votes, or something like votes, to determine that consensus on a particular issue. But even during a "vote" most of them not only permit but encourage discussion in addition to simple "Yes" or "No" votes, in hopes that people of one view can persuade those of another, or that a compromise can emerge, and in either case a true consensus, not just a majority or super-majority, can emerge.
And of course, Satan himself will from time to time just tell you what's fucking what.
It is no accident that the basic mechanism for demeaning civil rights is called "Due Process of Bureaucracy". Indeed, in most bureaucratic systems the effective mechanisms for stifling rights and freedoms are essentially procedural ones.
Of course, Hell is not a government, nor is its primary purpose to be a social or communitarian experiment. But many of the same problems arise whenever lots of entities interact, some of them with strongly opposing views. The basically procedural methods that have been used to solve these problems when running governments often must apply, with suitable variations, in an inferno such as Hell — and this only becomes more true as such an inferno becomes larger and more influential.
Sometimes a process can be like unto a pitchfork in the buttocks. Some processes demand that demons go through several steps to achieve a result. Some can be cumbersome or time-consuming. Some do not deal with particular situations as rapidly as a demon might wish. Sometimes going through the process seems unlikely to give the result that a demon desires. In all these cases, there is a temptation, sometimes a strong temptation, to act unilaterally, to simply "fuck" the problem as one sees it. Often this is technically possible in Hell. Sometimes many demons will support it.
The problem with yielding to this temptation is that it affects the overall structure of the functionality of Hell. It throws sand in the gears of the inferno. When demons see others acting outside of process, they may be convinced that they ought to do the same; or they may be convinced that the dark whispering voices and views will get no respect or consideration. If all demons act outside of process, there is no process, no organization to our efforts. Then we do not have a functional collaborative inferno; we have some hippie bullshit. Which is no way to run an inferno.
The primary goal of Hell is the damnation of sinners, and any process is only a means to that end. Even the community of Hellions, important as it is to some, is only a means to that end.
Often following a process takes more time and effort in a particular case than acting unilaterally. Sometimes following a process will give a less distended sinner's anus in a particular case. But frequently acting outside of process causes strong and widespread dissatisfaction, which consumes far more time and effort than any saved by avoiding the process in the first place.
Even in the more numerous cases where no great uproar results, actions outside of process still tend to damage the trust of individual imps and demons in the institution of Hell, and to damage the community. And the community is the essential tool in the damnation of the sinners. Without the community, there is no one to brutally sodomise them, and there is no way to organize the brutal sodomy. Without the community, there is no reason for anyone to undertake any of the many needed but unglamorous tasks on which the damnation of the sinners depends.
Process need not be inflexible — most Hell processes and policies can be changed if the community, or the relevant section of it, wants to change them. Many processes allow for exceptions or alternate routes in particular cases or circumstances; such exceptions can be added to processes that do not have them.
In a small group there is little need for structure or process. When five people work on a sinner, little structure and no formal process may be required. When five thousand work together on a substantial group of sinners, there must be some structure or the inferno will collapse. While Hell intentionally has relatively little structure, it must have some to continue in a productive way. Processes, formal and informal, are some of the key elements in that structure.
During the early days of Hell, few processes were needed to maintain its essential structure. Many — at first most — demons knew each other or rapidly came to know each other. Issues could be resolved by informal discussion or casual fights to the death with tooth and claw, with little need for any other process.
As Hell has grown, more process has developed. While many demons still know or know of each other, there are many overlapping sub-communities, and no one knows all or even most of the most accomplished torturers. Demons have strong and differing views about policy and damnation issues. Process, often formal process, is needed to allow issues to be resolved in ways that all can accept as reasonable, even when individuals strongly disagree with particular results. Unilateral action tends to subvert that acceptance, and lead to a "me-first" or a "my way or the highway" attitude to the inferno — even or especially when demons sincerely believe that they are acting for the enhancement of the inferno.
Action outside of process is particularly dangerous when it involves powers restricted to the Unholy Host, or knowledge available only to long-established demons. This tends to create at least the impression of a caste system. No one wants to be on the bottom of a caste system, and such perceptions reduce the motivation for demons to contribute.
For all these reasons, demons and particularly the Unholy Host ought to adhere to and use existing processes, and resist the temptation to act outside of process, other than in truly emergency situations. If a process is not good, think enough of fellow Hellions to engage the problem and propose a change to it; don't just ignore the process.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
doc wrote:
An they said it wouldn't lead to process wonking and lame admin dispute?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback&am...
At least they're wonking over there, instead of on some subject where it actually might have some sort of impact on something.
I'm increasingly becoming supportive of the RfR idea purely as a honeypot.
On 15/01/2008, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I'm increasingly becoming supportive of the RfR idea purely as a honeypot.
So when do we tell the participants of their status?
"Congratulations! You have made 1000 edits to an RfR-related page! We are glad this has kept you away from fiddling with anything important."
- d.
On Jan 11, 2008 5:29 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
So throw up another poll about extending it to autoconfirmed - you are right as far as I can tell that it enjoys some support, but I doubt that the folks invested in the original poll or involved in the RfR granting process at this point will support it.
[snip]
A poll was thrown up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Vote which covered this exactly. Then someone replaced it with a similar poll (wiping out about 200 votes in the process) which arguably corrected some of the bias of the original poll. There were also people editing comments on the page and other shenanigans. After it got up to a dozen or so people it too was edit warred, and putting my own vote in was a challenge due to edit conflicts. It too was nuked out after a while.. the replaced with a poll about polling. Fortunately the page was protected before someone introduced a poll about polls for polls.
I think this whole thing could have been avoided if the common sense notion that polls over the holidays are a bad idea had occurred to the folks involved in setting it up. Two or three guys rushed it, and here we are. Still, I think the bureaucracy concerns can be largely allayed by either making it an autoconfirm right or allowing admins to just grant it - with no more process than a block, which is certainly a bigger deal.
Agreed. Although "admins to just grant it" has already resulted in wheel wars. :(
On 10/01/2008, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback
So, have we come to the point where User Rights:Developer trumps User rights:Editor?
No we reached that point around the time we switched from what is now the classic skin.
On 10/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback So, have we come to the point where User Rights:Developer trumps User rights:Editor?
No we reached that point around the time we switched from what is now the classic skin.
No, we reached that point when we switched from UseMod to Phase 2.
- d.
On 11/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback
So, have we come to the point where User Rights:Developer trumps User rights:Editor?
No we reached that point around the time we switched from what is now the classic skin.
Actually, I'd say there's been a steady, voluntary erosion of the control developers have over the site. We no longer need developers to do things for us like oversighting revisions or modifying most interface text. It's only new things that really need their intervention.
~Mark Ryan
On Jan 10, 2008 4:21 PM, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I'd say there's been a steady, voluntary erosion of the control developers have over the site. We no longer need developers to do things for us like oversighting revisions or modifying most interface text. It's only new things that really need their intervention.
Although most of the time, if the developers decide to implement a new feature they don't ask for consensus in a particular Wikipedia edition.
-Matt
On 11/01/2008, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I'd say there's been a steady, voluntary erosion of the control developers have over the site. We no longer need developers to do things for us like oversighting revisions or modifying most interface text. It's only new things that really need their intervention.
Most of those came about because of the pain-in-the-arse factor for developers - they have enough work to do keeping our fabulous towering edifice of gaffer tape and string running! Checkuser, oversight, interface text ...
I think the arbcom would be silly to take on the question of rollback permissions if they could reasonably avoid doing so - accepting it will mean everyone with an argument will whinge to them, more than now.
(Personally I'd favour just making it autoconfirmed. But I didn't !vote either time around.)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I think the arbcom would be silly to take on the question of rollback permissions if they could reasonably avoid doing so - accepting it will mean everyone with an argument will whinge to them, more than now.
If arbcom's purpose is to protect itself against whinging, then it should certainly not take on this case (or many other cases for that matter).
The problem is, if they don't, then our little Christmas coup d'etat, which forced this through, becomes the new immovable status quo. The community can discuss it all they want, but since *genuine* consensus is unachievable here, there's no chance of overturning this - unless someone else can figure out how to game the system.
Basically, a complaint without hope of remedy.
Of course, rollback is itself 'no-big deal', indeed no deal at all - and I'd give it free with cornflakes - but the layers of bitchfighting and b'cracy that admins with TEH POWER, and aggrieved users who get denied promotion, will cause will be a totally unnecessary disruption.
Yes, arbcom may avoid whinging, but expect indefinite cases of whinging on ANI every time a permission is removed, refused, or too liberally granted - all for a silly bauble that no-one has demonstrated does any project good at all - and to protect against a misuse that no-one has demonstrated can do any real harm.
doc wrote:
Of course, rollback is itself 'no-big deal', indeed no deal at all - and I'd give it free with cornflakes - but the layers of bitchfighting and b'cracy that admins with TEH POWER, and aggrieved users who get denied promotion, will cause will be a totally unnecessary disruption.
On the other hand RfR could become a sinkhole that soaks up the attention and energy of the overly bureaucracy-obsessed into a relatively harmless (and pointless) pursuit, perhaps easing the burden somewhat on more important areas of Wikipedia decision-making.
It's been implemented in a bad way, but there might be some lemonade to be made now that it's here. :)