Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
I'll pick one small quote from this: Why not update the page to reflect that civility isn't a rule you can bust someone for breaking, but rather a strategy for dispute resolution that you'll eventually be blocked for not applying? And the answer is: Because it *is* a rule you can bust someone for breaking. It's a problem that happens in lots of places. The rules are stupid if literally followed, and they're easily abused. But the system is set up to give rules that power. Being stupid works; abusing rules works. As long as it works, it will continue to happen. Think of it as a form of natural selection: the rules environment selects for users best able to use the rules to their own benefit. And saying it's not for this, it's just for the exact same thing stated in a nicer way is just denial. There's no difference between it's something you can bust people for and it's something you can block people for if they don't follow, except that the latter means you're doing it with a smile on your face. They have the exact same effect as far as a user is concerned. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
I am afraid it is not accurate. In footbal (soccer), FIFA delivers the same yellow and red cards to all referees around the world. [[FIFA Disciplinary Code]] regulates not just civility but far beyond that and it it certainly governs the professional lives of millions of players. But why am I talking about sports disciplinary codes? Just go to another country and tell them that you are a foreigner and you'd probably deserve to be exempted from following their code of law! The idea that we are diverse and think differently has little basis when being uncivil. Fayssal F. Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:03:47 +0100 From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 206791b10908111803v343ac124ua59baa28d0eff...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 How about... The Wikipedia community is too large and diverse for any single standard of civility to be effective. Careful application of broad standards of civility need to be adapted to individual situations, while not compromising core values. Is that accurate or not? Carcharoth -- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Fayssal F. wrote: I am afraid it is not accurate. In footbal (soccer), FIFA delivers the same yellow and red cards to all referees around the world. [[FIFA Disciplinary Code]] regulates not just civility but far beyond that and it it certainly governs the professional lives of millions of players. But why am I talking about sports disciplinary codes? Just go to another country and tell them that you are a foreigner and you'd probably deserve to be exempted from following their code of law! The idea that we are diverse and think differently has little basis when being uncivil. There was an article in The Guardian last week about risks and security policies. The article pointed out that most people didn't respect security policy because of the limited risk associated with breaching it. The writer made the point that if companies wanted security procedures to be respected, they had to start firing people simply because they had shared passwords. I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. There has to be a line, and it has to be enforced. The minute we allow certain people over the line, we allow everyone over it, because of the rod just made regarding impartiality. I don't care how good your contributions are, Wikipedia is also a community, and the lack of self control which means you can use such language implies you do not have the right social skills needed to collaborate on creating wikipedia. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote: There was an article in The Guardian last week about risks and security policies. The article pointed out that most people didn't respect security policy because of the limited risk associated with breaching it. The writer made the point that if companies wanted security procedures to be respected, they had to start firing people simply because they had shared passwords. I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. There has to be a line, and it has to be enforced. The minute we allow certain people over the line, we allow everyone over it, because of the rod just made regarding impartiality. I don't care how good your contributions are, Wikipedia is also a community, and the lack of self control which means you can use such language implies you do not have the right social skills needed to collaborate on creating wikipedia. Endorse. FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
At 09:59 PM 8/11/2009, FT2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: Any solution to this problem should start with the simple question: How do you treat another human being? The biggest clue isn't some civility standard - it's when some user says please talk about the issues, actions, and evidence, rather than insinuations and ad hominen. Any user should have that right. The problem with this is that the protest is itself ad hominem. Insinuations is a complex negative judgment about the *intention* of another. I've seen practically a direct quote of the above in a discussion where it was the issues, actions, and evidence that were discussed by the other editor, as far as I could tell. The statement is an insinuation that the other editor was *not* behaving properly. We have open discussion, self-regulated most of the time, between people who commonly have no experience with consensus process. We have editors who have a strong agenda who complain that other editors have a different strong agenda. Consensus process can be tedious in person, where the communication bandwidth is far higher than mere text, we have tone of voice, pauses, body language (which is highly efficient compared to text at communicating intention). Two people just looking at each other can find agreement rapidly, if agreement is what they intend, yet, even there, communication can break down if skills are lacking. With text, without all those other cues, we still need to know, often, what the *point* is, in order to understand. Yet in consensus process, one of the steps is abandoning the point -- temporarily -- and exploring what is present. Where there is conflict, the roots of the conflict may not be apparent, each party may have a complex of opinions, including unexplored assumptions, and finding where the true conflict lies can be difficult at best and may require discussing aspects of a situation other than the goal, which with us is always, in the end, article text. Where no underlying agreement has been reached, differences of opinion about the result can be unresolvable. There are people who are skilled at facilitating consensus, given the opportunity. Dispute resolution process suggests bringing in a neutral party to mediate, but we don't insist on that process. Instead, we have editors who, when they oppose what another editor is trying to do, go to a noticeboard to request that the other editor be coerced into stopping. And the noticeboards are full of result-oriented editors who are impatient with process. Dispute resolution works best when discussions are very small-scale, it should normally be three editors involved, not the whole community, and the goal of one of these editors should be to help the other two find consensus. When I had a problem with Jehochman, who had dropped a warning on my Talk page that seemed to me to attack everything I was doing as useless garbage or worse, which warning then led to a block by another administrator (complicated situation from which I learned and accomplished a great deal), I first explored my own behavior, asking for advice about it. Once I had that advice, from other editors, I went to Jehochman and asked him to consider what I'd collected. He didn't want to, and I can understand. Why should he read all that stuff? So I asked that he suggest a mediator. He wrote Carcharoth. Brilliant, I thought, I couldn't imagine anyone better. So we went to Carcharoth and asked for mediation. Carcharoth was even more brilliant than I expected. Carcharoth agreed to help, but was busy. Then, after some delay, when we asked again, Carcharoth wrote, Can't you guys work it out? So we did. Quickly, in fact. There was a shift in intention; our intention became to resolve the dispute, not to promote our own purposes and convince the other that we were right and they should change. Carcharoth had reframed the problem. The problem was our apparent inability to resolve the dispute by ourselves. We really unable to do this? We need to recognize that there is a problem with our own intentions. By focusing on article text and insisting on sticking to that, we sometimes divert ourselves from the process of finding agreement and what that takes. In real-life consensus process, the obstacle to agreement often turns out to be something completely unexpected, and to find it requires setting aside our preconceptions not only about others, but about ourselves. The practical suggestion here? If there is a dispute, working on it with discussion limited to three people, one of whom has a known agenda to help the other two find agreement, or, failing that, to document the dispute clearly so that both of the others will say, Yes, that is a fair, accurate and complete statement of our dispute. Then, and only then, would the discussion expand. We have the mechanisms for it, the technology, but we
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Marc Riddell wrote: The bottom line here is: what can we passengers do about it when we aren't the ones driving? Well, I co-wrote a book of 500 pages expressly designed to help newbies participate and understand the culture. You? Do you blog, at least? I'd like to know who you think is at the wheel, because for all my time on Wikipedia, it's not a question I can answer. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Try evasive. on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example. Assume good faith in this Project has come to mean Don't ask questions. That era is finally over. Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: 2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Try evasive. on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example. Assume good faith in this Project has come to mean Don't ask questions. That era is finally over. That era never existed. There have always been people prepared to ask difficult questions and demand answers. It is actually possibly to ask such questions while still assuming good faith. It is also possible to avoid asking such questions and still assume bad faith by your actions. In other words, your interpretation of assume good faith or what it has meant in the past, is overly simplistic. A fuller description of the realities of AGF is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Carcharoth wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: 2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Try evasive. on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example. Assume good faith in this Project has come to mean Don't ask questions. That era is finally over. That era never existed. There have always been people prepared to ask difficult questions and demand answers. See for example the RfCs that come up, related to civility and harassment. I, for one, would like to see Marc and those who think like him actively participating whenever there is a chance to pin admins down as to why they are shielding those who are uncivil or engage in harassment (for which we have an adequately broad definition). These points do come up, the forums for dispute resolution are open and free, and those who sit on their hands are definitely not part of the solution. I could say more, but that would be at the risk of autobiography. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: 2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Try evasive. on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example. Assume good faith in this Project has come to mean Don't ask questions. That era is finally over. on 8/12/09 8:58 AM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: That era never existed. There have always been people prepared to ask difficult questions and demand answers. It is actually possibly to ask such questions while still assuming good faith. It is also possible to avoid asking such questions and still assume bad faith by your actions. In other words, your interpretation of assume good faith or what it has meant in the past, is overly simplistic. A fuller description of the realities of AGF is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Think about it, Carcharoth, you are referencing the very thing I am challenging. More to the point of this thread, what do you think about the condition of the Project's culture as far as how people are being treated is concerned? Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: 2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Try evasive. on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example. Assume good faith in this Project has come to mean Don't ask questions. That era is finally over. on 8/12/09 8:58 AM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: That era never existed. There have always been people prepared to ask difficult questions and demand answers. It is actually possibly to ask such questions while still assuming good faith. It is also possible to avoid asking such questions and still assume bad faith by your actions. In other words, your interpretation of assume good faith or what it has meant in the past, is overly simplistic. A fuller description of the realities of AGF is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Think about it, Carcharoth, you are referencing the very thing I am challenging. It was a link to ensure that people here had actually read the current page. Why do you think I was referencing it? More to the point of this thread, what do you think about the condition of the Project's culture as far as how people are being treated is concerned? It varies depending on where in the project you are active and who you are interacting with. I don't think you can generalise completely here. I've always thought there has been a strong undercurrent of BITE-y behaviour at controversial pages, a general lack of leadership and improvement in some controversial areas, a lack of learning lessons from the successes, some elements of OWN-ership in out-of-the-way places, and too much overt politics and personal grudges being played out in something akin to a soap opera at times. But I also think people miss the productive areas and focus on the high-profile areas where things are less ideal. A kind of selection bias - remembering the bad stuff and forgetting the good stuff. In many cases, I think too many people try and get involved, and things deteriorate from there. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote: I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. Do this and you've suddenly made provocation a lot more profitable for the provoker. There's a reason why zero tolerance policies are considered unjust in real life by just about everyone who's thought about them. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Ken Arromdee wrote: There's a reason why zero tolerance policies are considered unjust in real life by just about everyone who's thought about them. Maybe so. There is also a reason or two why appeasement is considered short-sighted by people who have seen it tried. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote: I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. Do this and you've suddenly made provocation a lot more profitable for the provoker. There's a reason why zero tolerance policies are considered unjust in real life by just about everyone who's thought about them. And just think what would happen if there was zero tolerance on those abusing a zero tolerance rule to get their opponents blocked. Of course, the former is a bright-line rule, the latter requires judgment. Pointing out where people game the system the other way, being brash and aggressive because they think they won't be blocked, also requires judgment. Not all these judgments will be correct. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others. I agree. I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary. Not as a punishment, or a chance to cool down, but as a way to say Your attitude is disrupting Wikipedia, and preventing it from improving. Come back in [12/24 hours/a week/a month/whatever] and we'll give you another chance, and not many more. Emily On Aug 11, 2009, at 9:31 PM, Nathan wrote: It's interesting that Marc assigns the blame for the myriad conduct problems to leadership (the executive suite, though I'm not sure who this represents). I might argue the opposite. The lack of leadership makes it impossible to maintain consistent standards of behavior. The amorphous and unstable crowd can't consistently agree either on what these standards are or how they should be enforced. It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others. Yet firm behavioral expectations and consistent enforcement are made possible by stable leadership. This is an obvious concept proven by thousands of years of human history, but Wikipedia is committed to an approach closer to anarchy. What we need, then, is a solution that provides for fair and consistent enforcement of fair and consistent standards in a community that lacks any normal facets of social stability. Unfortunately, people far brighter than I have been ruminating on this problem for years without arriving at such a solution. Perhaps the most credible proposals involve a reorganization of the decision making processes on Wikipedia, but these have all been shot down by some of the same people who complain most strenuously about cultural degradation. Until folks come up with more than complaints and minor tweaks to existing policies, I think its unlikely that significant progress is possible. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example. Oh, I just love sarcasm on the internet. It leaves so much room for confusion. Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:02 AM, David Gerard wrote: 2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Try evasive. It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. There has to be a line, and it has to be enforced. If we do that, then I think we have to give people blocks for BITEing and BAITing. It's the only way it'll work without people pouting, somewhat legitimately, But he/she/xe started it! Life's not fair! Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:08 AM, Surreptitiousness wrote: Fayssal F. wrote: I am afraid it is not accurate. In footbal (soccer), FIFA delivers the same yellow and red cards to all referees around the world. [[FIFA Disciplinary Code]] regulates not just civility but far beyond that and it it certainly governs the professional lives of millions of players. But why am I talking about sports disciplinary codes? Just go to another country and tell them that you are a foreigner and you'd probably deserve to be exempted from following their code of law! The idea that we are diverse and think differently has little basis when being uncivil. There was an article in The Guardian last week about risks and security policies. The article pointed out that most people didn't respect security policy because of the limited risk associated with breaching it. The writer made the point that if companies wanted security procedures to be respected, they had to start firing people simply because they had shared passwords. I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. There has to be a line, and it has to be enforced. The minute we allow certain people over the line, we allow everyone over it, because of the rod just made regarding impartiality. I don't care how good your contributions are, Wikipedia is also a community, and the lack of self control which means you can use such language implies you do not have the right social skills needed to collaborate on creating wikipedia. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Consensus process can be tedious in person, where the communication bandwidth is far higher than mere text, we have tone of voice, pauses, body language (which is highly efficient compared to text at communicating intention). If anyone of you have attended a Quaker worship meeting with emphasis on business, you'll understand just how true the above statement is. There's a joke online that it takes the whole meeting and 3-8 months for Quakers' to change a lightbulb. After all, they have to refer the issue to multiple committees, and the oldest member *just has* to break consensus right before the lightbulb is going to be changed, and then have to go to the hospital before the next business meeting. But in all honesty, think about it. Can you imagine trying to comprehend consensus and improve Wikipedia *at the same time* if you've never experienced consensus in your lifetime? Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 09:59 PM 8/11/2009, FT2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: Any solution to this problem should start with the simple question: How do you treat another human being? The biggest clue isn't some civility standard - it's when some user says please talk about the issues, actions, and evidence, rather than insinuations and ad hominen. Any user should have that right. The problem with this is that the protest is itself ad hominem. Insinuations is a complex negative judgment about the *intention* of another. I've seen practically a direct quote of the above in a discussion where it was the issues, actions, and evidence that were discussed by the other editor, as far as I could tell. The statement is an insinuation that the other editor was *not* behaving properly. We have open discussion, self-regulated most of the time, between people who commonly have no experience with consensus process. We have editors who have a strong agenda who complain that other editors have a different strong agenda. Consensus process can be tedious in person, where the communication bandwidth is far higher than mere text, we have tone of voice, pauses, body language (which is highly efficient compared to text at communicating intention). Two people just looking at each other can find agreement rapidly, if agreement is what they intend, yet, even there, communication can break down if skills are lacking. With text, without all those other cues, we still need to know, often, what the *point* is, in order to understand. Yet in consensus process, one of the steps is abandoning the point -- temporarily -- and exploring what is present. Where there is conflict, the roots of the conflict may not be apparent, each party may have a complex of opinions, including unexplored assumptions, and finding where the true conflict lies can be difficult at best and may require discussing aspects of a situation other than the goal, which with us is always, in the end, article text. Where no underlying agreement has been reached, differences of opinion about the result can be unresolvable. There are people who are skilled at facilitating consensus, given the opportunity. Dispute resolution process suggests bringing in a neutral party to mediate, but we don't insist on that process. Instead, we have editors who, when they oppose what another editor is trying to do, go to a noticeboard to request that the other editor be coerced into stopping. And the noticeboards are full of result-oriented editors who are impatient with process. Dispute resolution works best when discussions are very small-scale, it should normally be three editors involved, not the whole community, and the goal of one of these editors should be to help the other two find consensus. When I had a problem with Jehochman, who had dropped a warning on my Talk page that seemed to me to attack everything I was doing as useless garbage or worse, which warning then led to a block by another administrator (complicated situation from which I learned and accomplished a great deal), I first explored my own behavior, asking for advice about it. Once I had that advice, from other editors, I went to Jehochman and asked him to consider what I'd collected. He didn't want to, and I can understand. Why should he read all that stuff? So I asked that he suggest a mediator. He wrote Carcharoth. Brilliant, I thought, I couldn't imagine anyone better. So we went to Carcharoth and asked for mediation. Carcharoth was even more brilliant than I expected. Carcharoth agreed to help, but was busy. Then, after some delay, when we asked again, Carcharoth wrote, Can't you guys work it out? So we did. Quickly, in fact. There was a shift in intention; our intention became to resolve the dispute, not to promote our own purposes and convince the other that we were right and they should change. Carcharoth had reframed the problem.
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
These points do come up, the forums for dispute resolution are open and free, and those who sit on their hands are definitely not part of the solution. I agree. If you don't participate in discussion, don't complain after the discussion is closed. Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above statement applies to him. Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: Carcharoth wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: 2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Try evasive. on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example. Assume good faith in this Project has come to mean Don't ask questions. That era is finally over. That era never existed. There have always been people prepared to ask difficult questions and demand answers. See for example the RfCs that come up, related to civility and harassment. I, for one, would like to see Marc and those who think like him actively participating whenever there is a chance to pin admins down as to why they are shielding those who are uncivil or engage in harassment (for which we have an adequately broad definition). These points do come up, the forums for dispute resolution are open and free, and those who sit on their hands are definitely not part of the solution. I could say more, but that would be at the risk of autobiography. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. Do this and you've suddenly made provocation a lot more profitable for the provoker. Like I said before, both the provoker and provokee need to be blocked. Prefrebly, the provoker would actually get a longer block, with less chances to start over. We don't accept BAITing, after all. Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote: I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. Do this and you've suddenly made provocation a lot more profitable for the provoker. There's a reason why zero tolerance policies are considered unjust in real life by just about everyone who's thought about them. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
This is meta discussion, equal parts hang-wringing and philosophical debate. I think what he was referring to was more of the trench-work of promoting civility: actual involvement in dispute resolution and the application of the civility policy. I have no idea whether Marc gets involved in the nitty gritty or sticks to pot shots from off the field, but mailing list participation usually falls in the latter category. Nathan On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote: These points do come up, the forums for dispute resolution are open and free, and those who sit on their hands are definitely not part of the solution. I agree. If you don't participate in discussion, don't complain after the discussion is closed. Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above statement applies to him. Emily ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
I think what he was referring to was more of the trench-work of promoting civility: actual involvement in dispute resolution and the application of the civility policy. That's a lot harder than actually working in Wikipedia, true. I have no idea whether Marc gets involved in the nitty gritty or sticks to pot shots from off the field, but mailing list participation usually falls in the latter category. Usually. I hope and dare to believe this discussion will actually affect the English Wikipedia. Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Nathan wrote: This is meta discussion, equal parts hang-wringing and philosophical debate. I think what he was referring to was more of the trench-work of promoting civility: actual involvement in dispute resolution and the application of the civility policy. I have no idea whether Marc gets involved in the nitty gritty or sticks to pot shots from off the field, but mailing list participation usually falls in the latter category. Nathan On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote: These points do come up, the forums for dispute resolution are open and free, and those who sit on their hands are definitely not part of the solution. I agree. If you don't participate in discussion, don't complain after the discussion is closed. Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above statement applies to him. Emily ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Emily Monroe wrote: I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary. Not as a punishment, or a chance to cool down, but as a way to say Your attitude is disrupting Wikipedia, and preventing it from improving. Come back in [12/24 hours/a week/a month/whatever] and we'll give you another chance, and not many more. You'd have thought that would be the argument: Wikipedia is a working environment, and those who cause the environment to deteriorate are on a warning. That's where things had got to a couple of years ago, and no progress has been made since then. In fact there are brownie points to be had in some cases by people who completely disregard all of that. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com: Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above statement applies to him. Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the wiki are actually made. They aren't made here. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/12 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com: You'd have thought that would be the argument: Wikipedia is a working environment, and those who cause the environment to deteriorate are on a warning. That's where things had got to a couple of years ago, and no progress has been made since then. In fact there are brownie points to be had in some cases by people who completely disregard all of that. Indeed. Enforcement would require the Arbitration Committee to actually be interested. In practice, the 2009 AC is a miserable failure in setting any standard: note the recent case of a notoriously incivil admin, who was busted running an even more abusive sockpuppet for two years; the AC sat on the evidence for a month and it took incensed bludgeoning to get them to actually do anything about it. That's beyond appeasement and into personal enablement. But they are the AC the community voted for. So civility won't be a happener until the community shows it is with its votes. There's a lot to be said for deleting the Wikipedia: space in its entirety and starting the community over ... - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the wiki are actually made. They aren't made here. Oh, sorry, I didn't know his history. Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:30 AM, David Gerard wrote: 2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com: Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above statement applies to him. Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the wiki are actually made. They aren't made here. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com: Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above statement applies to him. Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the wiki are actually made. They aren't made here. David, you lead not only by insinuation, but by deception. The Mailing Lists are the medium I choose to use. I am not looking for decisions to be made here, merely a consensus that there are, indeed, problems. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: 2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Try evasive. on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example. Assume good faith in this Project has come to mean Don't ask questions. That era is finally over. on 8/12/09 8:58 AM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: That era never existed. There have always been people prepared to ask difficult questions and demand answers. It is actually possibly to ask such questions while still assuming good faith. It is also possible to avoid asking such questions and still assume bad faith by your actions. In other words, your interpretation of assume good faith or what it has meant in the past, is overly simplistic. A fuller description of the realities of AGF is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Think about it, Carcharoth, you are referencing the very thing I am challenging. on 8/12/09 9:47 AM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: It was a link to ensure that people here had actually read the current page. Why do you think I was referencing it? More to the point of this thread, what do you think about the condition of the Project's culture as far as how people are being treated is concerned? It varies depending on where in the project you are active and who you are interacting with. I don't think you can generalise completely here. I've always thought there has been a strong undercurrent of BITE-y behaviour at controversial pages, a general lack of leadership and improvement in some controversial areas, a lack of learning lessons from the successes, some elements of OWN-ership in out-of-the-way places, and too much overt politics and personal grudges being played out in something akin to a soap opera at times. But I also think people miss the productive areas and focus on the high-profile areas where things are less ideal. A kind of selection bias - remembering the bad stuff and forgetting the good stuff. In many cases, I think too many people try and get involved, and things deteriorate from there. We, at least, seem to agree on most things, Carcharoth :-). Two words in your message state what is the main, insidious problem with the Project's culture: It varies. To be fully productive, to reach its greatest potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary. To work, to create, at their full potential, a person must be able to focus on that: the work. They cannot be constantly looking over their shoulder, or live with the anxiety that an unstable, unpredictable workplace can produce. And the old party-liners - those who have led by insinuation and not consensus - can blow all the smoke they want at the messengers, but the message is still there loud an clear. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Emily Monroe wrote: Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the wiki are actually made. They aren't made here. Oh, sorry, I didn't know his history. You can be fairly sure that the people on whom civility enforcement should devolve, namely admins (given that most offences against WP:CIVIL should not require elaborate discussion), and who either think so what or actively obstruct enforcement, will take absolutely no notice of exhortations on wikien-l. The dynamic is that people who take part in onwiki discussions count for that. Lamentably, it's who has the posse. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/8/11 Marc Riddell: on 8/11/09 4:13 PM, George Herbert at wrote I am still reviewing the statistics and sum total comments, but some takeaways I already have - 0. It's a problem. 1. We're not enforcing consistently at all, and that's hurting us. 2. We're BITEing new users. Is anyone really surprised at this? On this very List people are constantly bragging about how wonderful Wikipedia is; focusing exclusively on how big it is. Yet completely ignoring how screwed up the culture is. It's like a company's media people pushing how good their product is, and how big their company is, and completely avoiding how poorly their workers are treated - while those in the executive suite are focused on trying to persuade people to invest money in them. Arrogance without wisdom is hubris. This is a formula for disaster. Wikipedia is a project and a community but, above all, it is an encyclopaedia. It is an encyclopaedia that a lot of people find very useful. Our system is working. There is certainly room for improvement, but I don't see this disaster you speak of. You are confusing ends and means. Yes Wikipedia is the object that we are trying to put together. That is the end. Matters relating to community, civility and generally how we get to that end all have to do with means. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
George Herbert wrote: You're right - a real proper survey would survey new users, and then users who came and then left. But finding the latter seems hrad. I think it's unlikely we can put the effort required in to do a proper statistical survey of the newly departed userbase, and suggest that we assume that more experienced people's impressions are roughly accurate. That is subject to challenge or someone actually doing the recently departed userbase survey and getting most appropriate info on the table. A significant portion of the newly departed are likely feeling pissed off or tired. What incentive is there for them to participate in such a survey? Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Marc Riddell wrote: Two words in your message state what is the main, insidious problem with the Project's culture: It varies. To be fully productive, to reach its greatest potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary. That seems to be twaddle. I work, largely, on mathematics, poetry and history. There is no obvious homogeneity in the people I meet; there are no obvious shared assumptions. The English Wikipedia draws on a particularly diverse population (many speaking English as a second language). It's not insidious that wikis don't select who works on them or how they work. It's part of the idea - a highly successful idea in our case - that the barriers to entry should be low. You'd get a more predictable culture if you said Ph.D.s and native speakers of English only. And no teenagers, ever. I had a talk page message four days ago starting That is just silly and ending Be serious. Lack of shared assumptions, in this case about a navigational template, is something I feel I ought to be able to rise above. To work, to create, at their full potential, a person must be able to focus on that: the work. They cannot be constantly looking over their shoulder, or live with the anxiety that an unstable, unpredictable workplace can produce. And the old party-liners - those who have led by insinuation and not consensus - can blow all the smoke they want at the messengers, but the message is still there loud an clear. I think you'll find a more informed, and, yes, more nuanced discussion going on in parts of this thread not dominated by generalities. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
At 08:18 PM 8/11/2009, you wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/11 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com: As someone commented on his blog, one of the problems is that the experts in an area are likely to have been very heavily involved in it. Also biased by that involvement towards a particular mindset, especially when it comes to speculative or cutting edge or controversial work. Bingo. I've started recommending a new approach to experts. Most experts, especially professionals (which includes academics), have a conflict of interest, and when they don't, their expertise still represents some kind of commitment to a field. In fringe fields, experts on one side may have a bias toward rejection of the entire field, they may even have an emotional reaction to it, and on the other side, experts are almost certainly a bit attached. In my current field of interest, Cold fusion, experts on the state of the research, who know the literature, have put many, many hours, many years, often, into it, with the interest being almost suicidal, professionally. You don't do that because you think it is all a stupid mistake. (Very many of the expert researchers have been graybeards, past retirement, with no more concern about tenure, etc.) Simple: anyone who claims expertise, automatically consider COI, which means that they don't edit articles controversially. It's great, fantastic, even, if they write an article, or helpfully correct it, but not if they own it. *However,* we need and should want the *advice* of these people, on all sides. If we welcome experts from a majority POV in a field, and exclude experts from a minority POV, we will create a bias in the arguments and sources being presented and discussed and almost certainly in the article. While there are experts who will point us to toward sources that appear to contradict their own POV, these are pretty unusual. (For an example with Cold fusion, there would be Nate Hoffman, A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects, 1995; unfortunately, 1995 is ancient history with Cold fusion, but he's very, very good about what was known then, and rigorously fair. He, quite correctly, presents the whole thing as an unsolved puzzle, with contradictory evidence, even though he is certainly skeptical, as one should be by default about something like cold fusion.) Experts will often be uncivil toward people who ignorantly question them. If allowed to edit the article, they easily imagine that they OWN it, and they will revert nonsense. But nonsense -- if added in good faith -- represents a lack of understanding of the topic, and if the article were ideally written, the reader would likely understand the topic! Significant objections to what the article says would largely be covered, instead of what happens too often, suppressed as undue weight. In talk, *less significant objections* would be covered in a FAQ. We have asserted and have sometimes enforced the idea that we don't discuss the *topic* in Talk, but that perpetuates the problem. I agree we should not discuss the topic on a Talk page for an article, but we should either set up a place to do that (I'm sure that if there are editors and experts working on a standard encyclopedia article, traditionally, there is some discussion of the topic!, or we should point to a good discussion forum, and, if there is controversy in a field, to the best forums on all sides. Some articles do this; in others, minority POV forums have been excluded as fringe. But they could be covered in a FAQ as a place to get more information and to learn about the topic. If an editor does not understand the topic, they become only slaves to the experts, when, in fact, the editors stand for the public and should insist that the topic is explained to *them* so that they can understand it from the article itself, and not from being berated by an expert or another editor who dislikes seeing an expert challenged! So: if an editor claims expertise -- and that should be encouraged! where it exists-- the editor would, on the one hand, be more strictly excluded from controversial edits to the article, but would, on the other, be protected to a degree from severe sanctions for POV-pushing -- don't we expect that from COI editors? -- or incivility. That doesn't mean that we allow them, for example, to be uncivil, no, we might short-block them quickly, if they do not respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their expertise and we want them to advise us. Civilly, please, and thanks. Now, that it's quieted down, and you have perhaps apologized for calling that editor a moron, and you will try to refrain from this in the future, I'm unblocking you. Remember, morons are people too, and our job is to educate the ignorant, not insult them. If you need help, here is how to get it I have become, in the last six months, from having
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Carcharoth wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: The problem is that the executive suite will sit up there and watch us ruminate and commiserate and, as they see it, get it out of our systems as they have many times in the past when this subject has been brought up, then return their attentions to what they think is important. The bottom line here is: what can we passengers do about it when we aren't the ones driving? What? This is Wikipedia. The passengers *are* driving! And every one of them has a cell phone in his hand, and paying more attention to his private conversation. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: snip To be fully productive, to reach its greatest potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary. To work, to create, at their full potential, a person must be able to focus on that: the work. They cannot be constantly looking over their shoulder, or live with the anxiety that an unstable, unpredictable workplace can produce. I think it is a balance. Have too uniform a culture and the variety of our output will suffer, both in terms of those willing to edit here (imagine the people who edit Wikipedia trying to get along in a normal workplace) and the diversity of the articles. There is also an argument that a homogenous workplace would work against 'neutral point of view'. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: snip. I had a talk page message four days ago starting That is just silly and ending Be serious. Lack of shared assumptions, in this case about a navigational template, is something I feel I ought to be able to rise above. The discussion that resulted from the redirect James Clerk-Maxwell was interesting as well. It *started* with a rather abrupt template notice, but the resulting discussion was good in the end. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: David, you lead not only by insinuation, but by deception. That's quite an accusation. I'm still waiting for you to reveal the Foundation-led civility list you were on. There was one that wasn't. Was that the one you mean? The Mailing Lists are the medium I choose to use. I am not looking for decisions to be made here, merely a consensus that there are, indeed, problems. You've had that in spades, for years. There are problems. You then berated all and sundry on various mailing lists despite being told repeatedly that you wouldn't get action on the matters unless you could convince the wiki community. You actively refused to engage with them. Your behaviour is that of someone who prefers familiar problems to working to solve them. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
David Gerard wrote: snip Great - now my turn - David, cool it. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
on 8/12/09 1:18 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: David, you lead not only by insinuation, but by deception. That's quite an accusation. Yes, it is, isn't it. I'm still waiting for you to reveal the Foundation-led civility list you were on. There was one that wasn't. Was that the one you mean? There was one that wasn't? Curious phrase. It was set up as a private list and I will not breach confidentiality by revealing details about it. The Mailing Lists are the medium I choose to use. I am not looking for decisions to be made here, merely a consensus that there are, indeed, problems. You've had that in spades, for years. There are problems. You then berated Berated is your term, David. It reflects neither me, nor how I interact with persons. all and sundry on various mailing lists despite being told repeatedly that you wouldn't get action on the matters The only action I am looking for is for the powers that be to stop ignoring a problem. unless you could convince the wiki community. The community is not who I am trying to convince. And, as for your statement, convince the community of what - that they are being abused? Do you really think they need convincing? Many respond to the culture by simply giving up and leaving. That is a part of what I am trying to prevent. You actively refused to engage with them. That is simply not true. Your behaviour is that of someone who prefers familiar problems to working to solve them. Analyzing my behavior is blowing smoke, David. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: snip To be fully productive, to reach its greatest potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary. To work, to create, at their full potential, a person must be able to focus on that: the work. They cannot be constantly looking over their shoulder, or live with the anxiety that an unstable, unpredictable workplace can produce. on 8/12/09 1:09 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I think it is a balance. Have too uniform a culture and the variety of our output will suffer, both in terms of those willing to edit here (imagine the people who edit Wikipedia trying to get along in a normal workplace) and the diversity of the articles. There is also an argument that a homogenous workplace would work against 'neutral point of view'. Once again, Carcharoth, I am not speaking about points of view regarding specific subjects. We can disagree to hell and gone about something and still maintain a mutual courtesy and respect for each other as human beings. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
In a message dated 8/12/2009 7:25:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com writes: Maybe so. There is also a reason or two why appeasement is considered short-sighted by people who have seen it tried. There is a middle ground. W.J. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Marc Riddell wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: snip To be fully productive, to reach its greatest potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary. To work, to create, at their full potential, a person must be able to focus on that: the work. They cannot be constantly looking over their shoulder, or live with the anxiety that an unstable, unpredictable workplace can produce. on 8/12/09 1:09 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I think it is a balance. Have too uniform a culture and the variety of our output will suffer, both in terms of those willing to edit here (imagine the people who edit Wikipedia trying to get along in a normal workplace) and the diversity of the articles. There is also an argument that a homogenous workplace would work against 'neutral point of view'. Once again, Carcharoth, I am not speaking about points of view regarding specific subjects. We can disagree to hell and gone about something and still maintain a mutual courtesy and respect for each other as human beings. Not sure whether to cite Dilbert or the Beach Boys here. To stop people constantly looking over their shoulder it would certainly help to place them in a 360-degree cubicle. To wish oneself the best of all cultural worlds sounds a bit like dreaming that they all could be California girls. In any case the monoculture as an ideal does no favours to Wikipedia, whatever the pedigree of [[Taylorism]] and [[Fordism]] in the for-profit sector; dull but efficient is not really the way to go, either. For well you know that it's a fool who plays it cool/By making his world a little colder. Think the Beatles win this one. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Election Results
The Wikimedia Foundation's Board Election Committee has concluded the board selection process, and is pleased to announce that the candidates ranked as follows: Final ranking 1 Ting Chen (Wing) 2 Kat Walsh (mindspillage) 3 Samuel Klein (Sj) 4 Gerard Meijssen (GerardM) 5 Domas Mituzas (Midom) 6 Thomas Braun (Redlinux) 7 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (Cimon Avaro) 8 Steve Smith (Sarcasticidealist) 9 Dan Rosenthal (Swatjester) 10 José Gustavo Góngora (Góngora) 11 Brady Brim-DeForest (Bradybd) 12 Lourie Pieterse (LouriePieterse) 13 Adam Koenigsberg (CastAStone) 14 Ralph Potdevin (Aruspice) 15 Beauford Anton Stenberg (B9 hummingbird hovering) 16 Gregory Kohs (Thekohser) 17 Kevin Riley O'Keeffe (KevinOKeeffe) 18 Relly Komaruzaman (Relly Komaruzaman) A full pairwise defeats table will be posted shortly. These names have been respectfully submitted to the Board, which has moved to seat the top three candidates. The Committee wishes to thank all those who submitted themselves as candidates. It was a broad and diverse field this year. We also wish to recognize the many volunteers that helped with this process. The committee extends its gratitude and thanks to them For the committee, Philippe ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/8/11 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Thank you, Thomas, you just made my point. This is exactly the type of focus and denial I was speaking of. I'm not denying we have a problem with civility. I got desysopped for a civility block the community and ArbCom objected to. What I'm denying is that this problem is going to lead it disaster. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Well, here's an odd thought. If Wikipedia dies, something to do with our community will probably be the reason. Everything else, we seem to have escaped. We're mostly out of the funding trap; we're not going to have to go offline for lack of money unless the Foundation *really* drop the ball. We've avoided being sucked into any horribly fatal lawsuits, and it looks like we've positioned ourselves to keep doing so. There aren't any obvious looming technical problems, or catastrophic holes in the IP model we rely on. Barring a freak accident losing the datacenter and a few months undumped work, Wikipedia has reached the stage where it isn't going to vanish one night due to something unfortunate. But this, this could do it. A breakdown in civility is a breakdown of community; a sufficiently comprehensive breakdown of the community will destroy the project, simply because it's now too big to be maintainable without that large and active community. That's not to say this will happen, of course; I don't think it will. But it's not implausible, to imagine us wasting away under a gradual growth of people who just don't want to play nice and don't see any benefit in it. Like I say, I wish we had an effective way of solving it. We can't direct one centrally, that's for sure. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Request for assistance for new editors
The civility thread has got me thinking, but I didn't want to hijack it, so here we go. This idea isn't fully formed, so forgive me. I was going through wikipedia, when I came across a newer editors talk page. S/he had several speedy deletion templates, and obvisouly didn't know what xe was doing when it came to creating articles (xe was making test-type articles, so copy-and-pasting WP:FIRSTARTICLE, stuff like that), but for whatever reason, xe wasn't going to ask for help. I came up with the idea that maybe we can rename the New Contributors' help page to Request for assistance for new editors. Not that it's already used enough already, but maybe this will make it more well-used. At the very least, we can maybe add to huggle something that says This new editor needs help fitting into wikipedia. Can anyone help him/her? Of course, while thinking about this, I forgot to help the editor who got me thinking about it! Emily ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: snip To be fully productive, to reach its greatest potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary. To work, to create, at their full potential, a person must be able to focus on that: the work. They cannot be constantly looking over their shoulder, or live with the anxiety that an unstable, unpredictable workplace can produce. I think it is a balance. Have too uniform a culture and the variety of our output will suffer, both in terms of those willing to edit here (imagine the people who edit Wikipedia trying to get along in a normal workplace) and the diversity of the articles. There is also an argument that a homogenous workplace would work against 'neutral point of view'. One can have highly non-homogenous workplaces in which respect and civility are still core values. There are rough spots - things where colliqualisms in one branch of English are insults in another, things that are mild grumpy words in one branch and severe insults in another, etc. However, one can work past those (with a non-zero-tolerance, but somewhat adaptive response). -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: George Herbert wrote: You're right - a real proper survey would survey new users, and then users who came and then left. But finding the latter seems hrad. I think it's unlikely we can put the effort required in to do a proper statistical survey of the newly departed userbase, and suggest that we assume that more experienced people's impressions are roughly accurate. That is subject to challenge or someone actually doing the recently departed userbase survey and getting most appropriate info on the table. A significant portion of the newly departed are likely feeling pissed off or tired. What incentive is there for them to participate in such a survey? I don't disagree - but if we REALLY REALLY want to know for sure why people are leaving, as opposed to making informed guesses based on surveys of our usual suspects, we have to go ask them anyways. I do not know if it's worth trying - I think the informed guesses are probably pretty useful - but understanding that the informed guess is a working theory and not necessarily ground truth, as we go forwards, is potentially important. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: 2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com: Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above statement applies to him. Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the wiki are actually made. They aren't made here. David, you lead not only by insinuation, but by deception. The Mailing Lists are the medium I choose to use. I am not looking for decisions to be made here, merely a consensus that there are, indeed, problems. Marc, I understand your frustration, but the word deception and your butting heads with David (who is unfortunately rather agreeably butting back, as he is wont to do (shame, David)) were at least unfortunate choices of words and could be considered uncivil. On the point of a consensus that there are problems - is there anyone who disagrees, strongly, with the thesis that we have civility problems? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:35 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/12 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com: You'd have thought that would be the argument: Wikipedia is a working environment, and those who cause the environment to deteriorate are on a warning. That's where things had got to a couple of years ago, and no progress has been made since then. In fact there are brownie points to be had in some cases by people who completely disregard all of that. Indeed. Enforcement would require the Arbitration Committee to actually be interested. Actually, it requires the arbitration committee to be either interested and active, or benignly neglecting the topic in the sense of won't overly aggressively pursue a case against civility-enforcing admins if one is brought. I believe we're functionally in the latter. I have found that in the case of admins behaving badly, the typical problem is more the backlash against the admin cabal getting in the way of focusing on the actual abuse, than admins or arbcom or anyone else standing in the way of warnings or sanctions against the initially offending admins. THAT, now, that's a problem I'd love some ideas and help on. How does one deal with the rampaging mob that rises after a (legitimate) admin abuse incident, without encouraging the admins banding together to protect each other meme and feelings? Reasoning with them is not working. Blocking them seems to be counterproductive to the long term trust of admins by the community writ large. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. Do this and you've suddenly made provocation a lot more profitable for the provoker. Like I said before, both the provoker and provokee need to be blocked. Prefrebly, the provoker would actually get a longer block, with less chances to start over. We don't accept BAITing, after all. I believe this is working; but it's not being applied very often or by very many admins. I've done it twice now in the last couple of months, in long running contentious cases; I don't see much more happening beyond that. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Assume good faith in this Project has come to mean Don't ask questions. That era is finally over. I strongly disagree with this. In many corners on-wiki, people of wildly differing biases and life experiences are getting together and talking about stuff and being polite about it. It doesn't always work, but it does work. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Andrew Gray wrote: Well, here's an odd thought. If Wikipedia dies, something to do with our community will probably be the reason. Nearly a truism these days. BLP issues coming 100 at a time in a sort of class action suit could do it ... Odder thought - mailing lists and newsgroups look more vulnerable (to civility problems, that is). Wikis tend to become dull, churn rate slows, maintenance mode takes over. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Emily Monroe wrote: Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the wiki are actually made. They aren't made here. Oh, sorry, I didn't know his history. You can be fairly sure that the people on whom civility enforcement should devolve, namely admins (given that most offences against WP:CIVIL should not require elaborate discussion), and who either think so what or actively obstruct enforcement, will take absolutely no notice of exhortations on wikien-l. The dynamic is that people who take part in onwiki discussions count for that. Lamentably, it's who has the posse. At the moment, if I had to name anyone who's the civility posse on enwiki, that would be me. And I'm certainly interested in the discussion here. My attention is divided in way too many directions - we need to get The Word out to the rest of the admin community and rest of the user community, many are helping but it's not consistent. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
George Herbert wrote: I have found that in the case of admins behaving badly, the typical problem is more the backlash against the admin cabal getting in the way of focusing on the actual abuse, than admins or arbcom or anyone else standing in the way of warnings or sanctions against the initially offending admins. There's more than a germ of truth in that. The last refuge of the scoundrel used to be patriotism. For us it is wrapping yourself in the flag of you do realise that the whole power structure is fundamentally corrupt... spiel, denying that discrete violations of policy have occurred when they have. Charles PS. There is no cabal. Take it from an ex-member. Ooops ... ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their expertise and we want them to advise us. Nothing says we respect your expertise like a short-term block :o) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
Bod Notbod wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their expertise and we want them to advise us. Nothing says we respect your expertise like a short-term block :o) Sadly, I think enthusiasm for accusations is likely to lead to COI being overused against experts. What is required to establish COI in our sense is a sustained demonstration that they have an agenda in editing that is clearly at odds with the encyclopedia's best interests. Not that they can't guess where lines someone else is drawing for the playing area run. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Ken Arromdee wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote: I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. Do this and you've suddenly made provocation a lot more profitable for the provoker. There's a reason why zero tolerance policies are considered unjust in real life by just about everyone who's thought about them. You haven't thought this through, or you've concluded that the correct response to provocation is escalation. The correct action to take when provoked is to walk away and involve someone else. It may well be that the person provoking you should and will be blocked, but too many times as an admin I was called in because someone had called someone something, only to find it was after a long slanging match which involved both parties. The only response then is to block both parties or neither, because otherwise you take sides, and we usually also use blocks as preventative rather than punitive. If you really feel like you have the right to call someone a cunt on Wikipedia, please leave now. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Emily Monroe wrote: It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others. I agree. I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary. Not as a punishment, or a chance to cool down, but as a way to say Your attitude is disrupting Wikipedia, and preventing it from improving. Come back in [12/24 hours/a week/a month/whatever] and we'll give you another chance, and not many more. Emily I agree emphatically. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Emily Monroe wrote: If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. There has to be a line, and it has to be enforced. If we do that, then I think we have to give people blocks for BITEing and BAITing. It's the only way it'll work without people pouting, somewhat legitimately, But he/she/xe started it! Life's not fair! The correct response to But he/she/xe started it! is and I've ended it, and to Life's not fair! it is yes, but we know that already, or possibly, neither is a black cat's bum. But to take your broader point, yes, we do need to give people blocks for biteing and baiting, and the correct response when you've been provoked is go mention it at the Ettiquette board. It makes it so much easier to work out which party is disruptive if one party is civil and following dispute resolution and one party is not. Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:08 AM, Surreptitiousness wrote: Fayssal F. wrote: I am afraid it is not accurate. In footbal (soccer), FIFA delivers the same yellow and red cards to all referees around the world. [[FIFA Disciplinary Code]] regulates not just civility but far beyond that and it it certainly governs the professional lives of millions of players. But why am I talking about sports disciplinary codes? Just go to another country and tell them that you are a foreigner and you'd probably deserve to be exempted from following their code of law! The idea that we are diverse and think differently has little basis when being uncivil. There was an article in The Guardian last week about risks and security policies. The article pointed out that most people didn't respect security policy because of the limited risk associated with breaching it. The writer made the point that if companies wanted security procedures to be respected, they had to start firing people simply because they had shared passwords. I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation. There has to be a line, and it has to be enforced. The minute we allow certain people over the line, we allow everyone over it, because of the rod just made regarding impartiality. I don't care how good your contributions are, Wikipedia is also a community, and the lack of self control which means you can use such language implies you do not have the right social skills needed to collaborate on creating wikipedia. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: There are people who are skilled at facilitating consensus, given the opportunity. Dispute resolution process suggests bringing in a neutral party to mediate, but we don't insist on that process. Instead, we have editors who, when they oppose what another editor is trying to do, go to a noticeboard to request that the other editor be coerced into stopping. And the noticeboards are full of result-oriented editors who are impatient with process. When I mentioned on a project list recently, possibly this one, that I had more time to spare on Wikipedia and asked where I should devote that time, and stated I'm interested in conflict resolution someone replied the last thing we need is another person getting involved in arguments. :o/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
David Gerard wrote: There's a lot to be said for deleting the Wikipedia: space in its entirety and starting the community over ... Didn't we block Ed Poor for trying something like that. I always thought he was on to something with his deletion of afd... I think the wiki has moved past the point where it would consider something this radical. Some people refuse to believe that we literally made the rules up as we went along. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: There are people who are skilled at facilitating consensus, given the opportunity. Dispute resolution process suggests bringing in a neutral party to mediate, but we don't insist on that process. Instead, we have editors who, when they oppose what another editor is trying to do, go to a noticeboard to request that the other editor be coerced into stopping. And the noticeboards are full of result-oriented editors who are impatient with process. When I mentioned on a project list recently, possibly this one, that I had more time to spare on Wikipedia and asked where I should devote that time, and stated I'm interested in conflict resolution someone replied the last thing we need is another person getting involved in arguments. :o/ That's most unfortunate. We have the whole mediation cabal who do just that. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: Hmm. What about somebody who has privileges? Clearly somebody who has non-admin rollback (like myself) may or may not have it removed. It would depend if the person being incivil is using the rollback to be incivil. Non-admin rollback is a position of trust, but not a lot of trust. An admin, steward, or bureaucrat, on the other hand, may have their privileges taken away. If you are in such a position, you're in a position of not just trust, but *trust*. Incivility takes away that trust. People may disagree with me, though. I get that. I think the people who ask to be stewards or bureaucrats seem to be unlikely to offend; they seem to be the stablest of us. Admins not necessarily so. I think that part of the reluctance to confront abusive admins is the but we don't want to kick them out of being an admin over this. Except that a civility warning, even a civility block, don't equate to admin rights removal. Arbcom can remove those - Stewards or B'crats in an emergency. The user could resign the rights. But just being blocked for normal behavior (not admin bit abuses) doesn't trigger any of those automatically. It's easier to maintain AGF on an admin who I know and has been around for a while (and generally, for experienced users), but AGF doesn't mutually exclude someone who clearly wants the best for Wikipedia but is expressing that in an abusive manner. I've warned admins for abusive behavior. Nothing bad has happened as a result. I think it's acceptable to the community. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
I don't disagree at al', but the arbitration committee have tended to take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin toolbox and flag. Our selection process for crats actually seems to work very well, because they seem to handle themselves well, and when there is a problem, they tend to fall on their swords, which in one sense is a good thing. I don't have much experience with Stewards, though. But yes, I've always followed Spider-Man, and thought that with great power comes great responsibility. Emily Monroe wrote: Hmm. What about somebody who has privileges? Clearly somebody who has non-admin rollback (like myself) may or may not have it removed. It would depend if the person being incivil is using the rollback to be incivil. Non-admin rollback is a position of trust, but not a lot of trust. An admin, steward, or bureaucrat, on the other hand, may have their privileges taken away. If you are in such a position, you're in a position of not just trust, but *trust*. Incivility takes away that trust. People may disagree with me, though. I get that. Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Surreptitiousness wrote: Emily Monroe wrote: It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others. I agree. I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary. Not as a punishment, or a chance to cool down, but as a way to say Your attitude is disrupting Wikipedia, and preventing it from improving. Come back in [12/24 hours/a week/a month/whatever] and we'll give you another chance, and not many more. Emily I agree emphatically. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
I think that part of the reluctance to confront abusive admins is the but we don't want to kick them out of being an admin over this. Yeah, and in the meantime, the admin is swinging xyr power around. Even if the xyr isn't doing this explicitly, people are *that more* afraid to confront xym because What if I get blocked for it? AGF doesn't mutually exclude someone who clearly wants the best for Wikipedia but is expressing that in an abusive manner. Let me use a possibly bad analogy. Some abusive parents want the best for their children. They're still abusive, and child abuse is still unacceptable. We shouldn't accept abusive behavior. The ends don't always justify the means. I've warned admins for abusive behavior. Good for you. Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 5:15 PM, George Herbert wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: Hmm. What about somebody who has privileges? Clearly somebody who has non-admin rollback (like myself) may or may not have it removed. It would depend if the person being incivil is using the rollback to be incivil. Non-admin rollback is a position of trust, but not a lot of trust. An admin, steward, or bureaucrat, on the other hand, may have their privileges taken away. If you are in such a position, you're in a position of not just trust, but *trust*. Incivility takes away that trust. People may disagree with me, though. I get that. I think the people who ask to be stewards or bureaucrats seem to be unlikely to offend; they seem to be the stablest of us. Admins not necessarily so. I think that part of the reluctance to confront abusive admins is the but we don't want to kick them out of being an admin over this. Except that a civility warning, even a civility block, don't equate to admin rights removal. Arbcom can remove those - Stewards or B'crats in an emergency. The user could resign the rights. But just being blocked for normal behavior (not admin bit abuses) doesn't trigger any of those automatically. It's easier to maintain AGF on an admin who I know and has been around for a while (and generally, for experienced users), but AGF doesn't mutually exclude someone who clearly wants the best for Wikipedia but is expressing that in an abusive manner. I've warned admins for abusive behavior. Nothing bad has happened as a result. I think it's acceptable to the community. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
the arbitration committee have tended to take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin toolbox and flag. Oh, I get it--precedent interferes with my idea. But yes, I've always followed Spider-Man, and thought that with great power comes great responsibility. This is exactly my point. If somebody has privileges, then they have that *much more responsibility* to act in a civil matter. Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Surreptitiousness wrote: I don't disagree at al', but the arbitration committee have tended to take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin toolbox and flag. Our selection process for crats actually seems to work very well, because they seem to handle themselves well, and when there is a problem, they tend to fall on their swords, which in one sense is a good thing. I don't have much experience with Stewards, though. But yes, I've always followed Spider-Man, and thought that with great power comes great responsibility. Emily Monroe wrote: Hmm. What about somebody who has privileges? Clearly somebody who has non-admin rollback (like myself) may or may not have it removed. It would depend if the person being incivil is using the rollback to be incivil. Non-admin rollback is a position of trust, but not a lot of trust. An admin, steward, or bureaucrat, on the other hand, may have their privileges taken away. If you are in such a position, you're in a position of not just trust, but *trust*. Incivility takes away that trust. People may disagree with me, though. I get that. Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Surreptitiousness wrote: Emily Monroe wrote: It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others. I agree. I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary. Not as a punishment, or a chance to cool down, but as a way to say Your attitude is disrupting Wikipedia, and preventing it from improving. Come back in [12/24 hours/a week/a month/whatever] and we'll give you another chance, and not many more. Emily I agree emphatically. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: the arbitration committee have tended to take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin toolbox and flag. Oh, I get it--precedent interferes with my idea. But yes, I've always followed Spider-Man, and thought that with great power comes great responsibility. This is exactly my point. If somebody has privileges, then they have that *much more responsibility* to act in a civil matter. That has unfortunately not been a formal enforced prerequisite nor strongly reinforced in the admins community. I agree with you - The example admins set is important. Every admin that's rude indicates to people that it's ok to be rude, and/or that it's ok to be rude if you're special (an admin) and not a peon (normal editors). Neither of these is a good thing. We have to have a tolerance band, even admins who normally go out of their way to be polite or levelheaded have bad days. People having a bad day, but not a persistent problem, should often just be politely notified and asked to go take the day off and relax / feel better elsewhere for a while. But admins who go too far overboard need to be reigned in, as do users who go too far overboard. And it does happen. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Emily Monroe wrote: the arbitration committee have tended to take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin toolbox and flag. Oh, I get it--precedent interferes with my idea. No that's not what I meant at all. I simply meant that while I agree with you, that hasn't tended to work in the past because of a failure to act by those with the ability to do so. I have no idea how bound by precedent the arbitration committee is. I find the community is becoming increasingly bound by precedent though. Of course your experience and opinion may differ. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
George Herbert wrote: But admins who go too far overboard need to be reigned in, as do users who go too far overboard. And it does happen. Not as often as it should, unfortunately. Nowhere near. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
I'll bite. It's an ad-hoc way of finding out if there's something wrong. Those who feel strongly, mostly those who got annoyed by someone biting them are going to respond. The majority perhaps, who don't feel one way or the other, won't. If 10% of the population leaves every month because they got bit, do 10% new members show up every month? It's seems rather unscientific for such a group of eggheads to depend on a survey of this sort to determine that a problem actually exists that is worth trying to fix. On another note, fixing civility problems more than they are already fixed (i.e. policy and action) sounds a bit like someone is proposing a stronger policy that may end up biting even more. I am an aggressive argumentalist and some take that to be insulting. But being aggressive is not the same as being uncivil. On the point of a consensus that there are problems - is there anyone who disagrees, strongly, with the thesis that we have civility problems? -Original Message- From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 12, 2009 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: 2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com: Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above statement applies to him. Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the wiki are actually made. They aren't made here. David, you lead not only by insinuation, but by deception. The Mailing Lists are the medium I choose to use. I am not looking for decisions to be made here, merely a consensus that there are, indeed, problems. Marc, I understand your frustration, but the word deception and your butting heads with David (who is unfortunately rather agreeably butting back, as he is wont to do (shame, David)) were at least unfortunate choices of words and could be considered uncivil. On the point of a consensus that there are problems - is there anyone who disagrees, strongly, with the thesis that we have civility problems? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
*That* someone is an expert in field xyz is not a WP:COI, although some may see it as a conflict-of-interest (in lower case). For something to be a conflict of interest in-project doesn't just require that a person has a strong opinion on it, or a history of deep knowledge of the topic. Rather it requires that they are something close and personal to *gain* from editing it in some particular fashion. And that that gain can't simply be academic acclaim or high-fiving from their peers. Rather that would be considered the normal rational response to a great article. Trying to position WP:COI as a way to attack experts merely for participating in the writing of articles about their field would be suicidal to the project. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 12, 2009 2:49 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article Bod Notbod wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their expertise and we want them to advise us. Nothing says we respect your expertise like a short-term block :o) Sadly, I think enthusiasm for accusations is likely to lead to COI being overused against experts. What is required to establish COI in our sense is a sustained demonstration that they have an agenda in editing that is clearly at odds with the encyclopedia's best interests. Not that they can't guess where lines someone else is drawing for the playing area run. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
I am an aggressive argumentalist and some take that to be insulting. But being aggressive is not the same as being uncivil. I think you're talking about assertiveness, not aggresiveness. Semantical, I know, but still. I think you're right, though. May I ask a personal question? What do you do when somebody gets insulted? Continue to bluntly assert yourself, or apologize and back down a little? Also, I wasn't advocating a zero-tolerance policy. I wanted to make that clear Emily On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:51 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I'll bite. It's an ad-hoc way of finding out if there's something wrong. Those who feel strongly, mostly those who got annoyed by someone biting them are going to respond. The majority perhaps, who don't feel one way or the other, won't. If 10% of the population leaves every month because they got bit, do 10% new members show up every month? It's seems rather unscientific for such a group of eggheads to depend on a survey of this sort to determine that a problem actually exists that is worth trying to fix. On another note, fixing civility problems more than they are already fixed (i.e. policy and action) sounds a bit like someone is proposing a stronger policy that may end up biting even more. I am an aggressive argumentalist and some take that to be insulting. But being aggressive is not the same as being uncivil. On the point of a consensus that there are problems - is there anyone who disagrees, strongly, with the thesis that we have civility problems? -Original Message- From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 12, 2009 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: 2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com: Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above statement applies to him. Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the wiki are actually made. They aren't made here. David, you lead not only by insinuation, but by deception. The Mailing Lists are the medium I choose to use. I am not looking for decisions to be made here, merely a consensus that there are, indeed, problems. Marc, I understand your frustration, but the word deception and your butting heads with David (who is unfortunately rather agreeably butting back, as he is wont to do (shame, David)) were at least unfortunate choices of words and could be considered uncivil. On the point of a consensus that there are problems - is there anyone who disagrees, strongly, with the thesis that we have civility problems? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
