Steve Bennett wrote:
But you question whether it's even encyclopedic. Apply the specialist
encyclopaedia test: would a specialist encyclopaedia about skiing in
North America list this ski area? It ought to. So the answer is yes.
Hmm, could be wrong, here's a webpage says Kettlebowl:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Amory Meltzer wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call that post nice. It reads to me like just
another person complaining.
Actually this is not so much an example on bullying, but on _precisely_
why we have WP:COI.
The hill has five rope tows and seven ski runs.
Apoc 2400 wrote:
A question for the admins here: When you come across an article wrongly
tagged for speedy deletinon or prod, do you check up on the user who tagged
it? What do you do if their deletion tagging is no more accurate than
picking new articles at random?
When I tackled NPP
Surreptitiousness wrote:
We've lost the idea that our readers can let us know what is missing
by starting new articles, because we enforce standards that don't
reflect that given reader's concerns. Yes, there's the obvious
argument that if we adopted the standards of the most edits, we'd
2009/9/21 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
I'd really like some decent surveys conducted which let us
know exactly what our users and readers want us to be, because without
that, we're just blowing hot-air.
+1
Suggest this on the strategy wiki.
We've lost the
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
We've lost the idea that our readers can let us know what is missing
by starting new articles, because we enforce standards that don't
reflect that given reader's concerns. Yes,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
To get back to the complainant, I'll say this. If I had a friend (and I
have been asked exactly this) who has an idea for a Wikipedia article on
a topic of immediate personal interest, what would I
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The hill has five rope tows and seven ski runs. Is this an
encyclopedic topic? Not really.
Hmm. I've written about quite a few ski resorts (Broken River,
Craigieburn Valley, Fox Peak, Invincible Snowfields,
In a message dated 9/19/2009 12:05:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
The best practical way to audit admin actions is to become an admin
oneself. Admins have just as many conflicts among them as any other
active people here. There are people I watch, and people who
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:32:05 -0500, Emily Monroe wrote:
I'm going to contribute to this thread backwards, replying first to
this message and then replying to other peoples' reply. I hope other
people don't mind at all.
I don't care what order you reply to messages, but I wish you
Emily Monroe wrote:
I suspect that'd mean the arbcom, who are quite busy enough ... but
hmm.
How about appointed by arbcom from a pool of people who were voted in
with a super majority?
Voting is evil. It starts by requiring people to run for the position,
and that alone
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Matt Jacobs wrote:
Having been bitten multiple times, I can definitely say the unfriendly
atmosphere has been a problem for a while now. Editors/admins who are
regularly rude to others are not only tolerated by most of the community,
they often have a group of
Emily Monroe wrote:
Yeah, it does seem to me that the more spammy the article, the more
likely the person simply doesn't know of Wikipedia's COI, spam, and
notability requirements. It's not that they are writing in bad faith,
they really don't know that, for example, just because their
George Herbert wrote:
People who are causing a problem but have aware friends - people who
know them and know AN and ANI and policy ok - rarely get driven off.
Their friends post an ANI thread if they're blocked excessively, or go
to the admin and advocate moderation, or go to another
The best practical way to audit admin actions is to become an admin
oneself. Admins have just as many conflicts among them as any other
active people here. There are people I watch, and people who watch me.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Sep
David Goodman wrote:
The best practical way to audit admin actions is to become an admin
oneself. Admins have just as many conflicts among them as any other
active people here. There are people I watch, and people who watch me.
Perhaps so. And maybe I should have taken steps to become
I wouldn't exactly call that post nice. It reads to me like just
another person complaining. The argument that an article about a
non-profit can't be an advertisement is absurd. I recognize that NPPs
should on the whole be nicer to submissions from newer users, but the
overwhelming majority of
A good way to test friendliness is to edit logged out or from an
alternative IP, or as a new account (but avoid breaching experiments),
and see if your contributions get treated any differently. I've heard
from numerous people that there is resistance to new editing and
biting behaviour going on,
Amory Meltzer wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call that post nice. It reads to me like just
another person complaining.
Actually this is not so much an example on bullying, but on _precisely_
why we have WP:COI.
The hill has five rope tows and seven ski runs. Is this an
encyclopedic topic? Not
Oh, please post this somewhere where it will be more widely read! What
you said makes the relevant points so well and so clearly. But maybe
frame it as increasing participation in Wikipedia, rather than
changing the unfriendly culture?
Carcharoth
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:47 PM, David Goodman
David Goodman wrote:
the overwhelming majority of speedily deleted articles deserve to be
so. -- yes, so they do. But of the people who contribute them, many
can be encouraged to learn how to write adequate articles and perhaps
become regular contributors. People who write inadequate
Most of the ones doing a single article won't be. Suppose one in five
of them did? But even apart from general purpose editors I've seen
some move on to do articles on their industry in general, and not
biased ones either, or fix technical errors in other related articles.
That it's difficult,
I'm going to contribute to this thread backwards, replying first to
this message and then replying to other peoples' reply. I hope other
people don't mind at all.
here's a nice post by someone who's been contributing occasionally
since 2004, about how daunting wikibullying can be for
When we see ex-wikipedians complaining about abusive admins, they
often didn't meet actual administrators, but self-appointed gate
keepers.
Any way to make admin status more obvious? I mean, I know being an
admin isn't supposed to be a big deal, but obviously a newcomer (or
even an
It is a balance between efficiently working through new page patrol
(NPP) and not scaring off new editors who may develop into good
editors, and who may be quite happy for others to take their edits
and improve them (but don't want them just thrown away).
I, on occasion, will improve an
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
snip
I can't help but notice that the author of this article keeps trying
to add articles that aren't to our standards. Maybe make people who
are writing their first (or second, or third, if the first or second
is
When you say not to our standards, are you expecting a minimum
standard from new editors?
Yeah, I do. I believe this helps them acclimate to the Wikipedia
community.
Like I've said previously, I often edit articles *before* tagging for
deletion. These articles are usually written by
The argument that an article about a non-profit can't be an
advertisement is absurd.
Well, yeah. Non-profits can advertise as well. They have that right,
if done in the proper place. The difference between a for-profit and
non-profit corporations is non-profits, at least in spirit, aren't
Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
When we see ex-wikipedians complaining about abusive admins, they
often didn't meet actual administrators, but self-appointed gate
keepers.
Any way to make admin status more obvious? I mean, I know being an
admin isn't supposed to be a big deal, but
But of the people who contribute them, many can be encouraged to
learn how to write adequate articles and perhaps become regular
contributors. People who write inadequate unsourced promotional
articles can be simply rejected, or alternatively helped to write
good ones or at least
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
While the latter responsibility (lights) has fallen to the Foundation,
Huh. This line refers to text I removed from my message, so I should
have taken this out too. I had referred to 'keeping the lights on' as
one of the inheritable responsibilities, but took
Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfriendliness is built into the system, even when admins and others
who enforce the rules are perfectly civil and try to be friendly at an
individual level.
Hm. We can change that. Wiki wont do it. Nor will Wikimedia for
that matter. But
The one that matters most to me is that something of the order of 2%
of speedy nominations are just cleanup cases (sometimes extreme, but
not nonsense as often tagged).
I assume you're an admin, and have the power to speedily delete. Do
you actually clean up the article instead of
Apoc 2400 wrote:
Over
the past years the number of vandals and other simple troublemakers has
dropped and our technical means of dealing with them have improved. We still
have the army of hobby-cops and they aren't going to sit around idle. So we
get the situation that writer above faces.
We can change that. Wiki wont do it. Nor will Wikimedia for that
matter. But collaboration will..
I agree 100%.
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:12 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfriendliness is built into the system, even when admins and others
who
The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal with those vandals
we have more harshly in the past (and no one cares).
Is that, or is that not a good thing? I honestly, sincerely ask this
question not out of spite, but of curiosity.
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Charles Matthews
Emily Monroe wrote:
The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal with those vandals
we have more harshly in the past (and no one cares).
Is that, or is that not a good thing? I honestly, sincerely ask this
question not out of spite, but of curiosity.
It is composed of two things.
For how long could I do this before I get blocked?
Quite a long time, if at all, I'm afraid. You would probably get a
WQA, RFC, and an arbitration case justifying your actions long after
there's any discussion of blocking you. More than likely, you'd be
banned from new page patrolling, and
Firstly, that powers to ban indefinitely have been devolved (sort
of) from ArbCom to the admins as a group (the qualification being
that ArbCom cannot ban anyone indefinitely).
First off, thanks for the history lesson. No, I'm not being sarcastic,
really, thanks.
In short, the checks
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Firstly, that powers to ban indefinitely have been devolved (sort
of) from ArbCom to the admins as a group (the qualification being
that ArbCom cannot ban anyone indefinitely).
First off, thanks for the history lesson.
People who are causing a problem but have aware friends - people
who know them and know AN and ANI and policy ok - rarely get driven
off. Their friends post an ANI thread if they're blocked
excessively, or go to the admin and advocate moderation, or go to
another administrator and
2009/9/18 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
I almost wish we had an admin action review board, whose job it was to
say just quickly look at some fraction (10%? 1%?) of all admin
actions and see if they're documented, justified, reasonable etc and
give the admins feedback, request more
I suspect that'd mean the arbcom, who are quite busy enough ... but
hmm.
How about appointed by arbcom from a pool of people who were voted in
with a super majority?
Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:35 PM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/18 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
I almost wish
Having been bitten multiple times, I can definitely say the unfriendly
atmosphere has been a problem for a while now. Editors/admins who are
regularly rude to others are not only tolerated by most of the community,
they often have a group of supporters around them always ready to praise
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Editors/admins who are regularly rude to others are not only
tolerated by most of the community, they often have a group of
supporters around them always ready to praise everything they do,
manipulating RfCs and other
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:35 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/18 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
I almost wish we had an admin action review board, whose job it was to
say just quickly look at some fraction (10%? 1%?) of all admin
actions and see if they're
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
[...]
*Any* system relies on people being told how to appeal against admin
actions, and it depends on them also having the confidence that they
will get a fair hearing, and that depends on those reviewing the
47 matches
Mail list logo
