Feel free to push my button:
|
|||
Timeline of events
My suggestion is to hold off on spending the time to create a timeline of events regarding the administrative action review process, given that various interested parties seem to be engaging once again on a way forward. I personally feel the same frustration at some of the expressed interpretations of events, but I do my best at not worrying about being proven right. (Like anyone, I get caught up and fail at times.) But it feels like we're getting closer to having a barebones procedure in place that can be built upon, thanks to one key ingredient that had been missing: simultaneous involvement from more editors with different viewpoints. isaacl (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Isaacl. OK, fair enough. I foresee an RFC in the future (a "real" one, not procedurally closed) that will tackle one or more issues about which local consensus will not develop, including possibly marking the whole thing historical, and that in that RFC, editors will be making confusing and contradictory claims about what the status quo is -- what there is consensus about, what happened, etc. I think documenting a clear timeline will help everyone gain an accurate understanding of what's transpired and lead to a stronger consensus about the way forward. I also think this has been a good learning opportunity and we're in the middle of a teachable moment about Wikipedia's consensus-development processes, and so I think a timeline is also worth documenting just for the sake of posterity, irrespective of ongoing discussions. But there's no reason it has to be done now, and you're right to point out that it may be counterproductive at this time, so I'll hold off. Thanks, Levivich 21:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've written things here and there about problems with English Wikipedia's "last consensus wins" approach, and how consensus agreements rely on the goodwill of editors (including those who opposed) to implement them. I might try to put some of these thoughts together in an essay, along with how a lot more people show up to suggest and support a proposal than to implement it (which has various negative effects). I usually am circumspect about pointing to specific instances of behaviour, though, to keep the peace. isaacl (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the thing that I was afraid would happen in the RFC -- multiple editors !voting based on a misunderstanding of what happened -- happened, so I posted a timeline. Levivich[block] 18:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've written things here and there about problems with English Wikipedia's "last consensus wins" approach, and how consensus agreements rely on the goodwill of editors (including those who opposed) to implement them. I might try to put some of these thoughts together in an essay, along with how a lot more people show up to suggest and support a proposal than to implement it (which has various negative effects). I usually am circumspect about pointing to specific instances of behaviour, though, to keep the peace. isaacl (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
On canvassing
If you read CANVASS closely, the last sentence in the lead notes "This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." Arbitration is not a consensus decision making process; it's a voting system engaged in by elected functionaries. So, you had no particular policy support for removing 7&6's content, and you did it again when he doubled down. That's arguably edit warring even without 3RR, and is just a bad idea. Let everyone be notified, let everyone contribute to the case appropriately, and trust the community's elected dispute resolvers to understand good arguments from bad ones. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I won't say whether or not I agree with either what Jclemens has said here, or the reverts that have been made/unmade. I would say though that given the circumstances it's probably more appropriate to leave a note on one of the talk pages of the case, and let the arbitrators and/or the clerks handle the situation as they see appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Jclemens:
- Remember back in October when 13 posted to WT:ARS about an ANI thread, and later that day, you broke your self-imposed moratorium from posting at WP:ANI to comment in the thread?
- Remember back in November when 13 again posted to WT:ARS about an ANI thread and the next day you supported sanctions against the editor who brought the ANI thread, and a couple days later, opposed sactions against 13?
- Remember last week when 13 once more posted to WT:ARS about an ANI thread and a few hours later you suggested sanctioning the editor who brought the thread (different editor than the last time)?
- You have more experience with Arbcom than I do, so you probably know better than me whether they'd be interested in this kind of evidence of canvassing, but you might want to consider self-reverting this fresh diff. (And by the way: arb clerks won't clerk a non-arbcom page like WT:ARS.) Levivich[block] 22:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, are you trying to insinuate that I'm some sort of an inclusionist? I do tend to consider myself a curationist rather than an inclusionist, but User:Jclemens/Rescues was created before my RfA, let alone either of my elections for ArbCom, so my take on the debate is not remotely a secret. Want a pithy quote? "In the end, it will not turn out to be the unsolicited paid editors who drowned Wikipedia in spam, nor the bitter partisans who drug real-world conflicts into Wikipedia and Balkanized it thereby, but instead the slow crush of deletionism that made Wikipedia insufficiently fun to attract a critical mass of casual editors who liked to write about questionably notable things." --Me, today.
- In all seriousness, how does my take on the i/d debate remotely matter? Canvassing doesn't apply to announcing ArbCom cases, full stop, and it wouldn't apply any the more or less if our philosophical positions were reversed. So, even if there's no offense intended, posting about my positions is both ad hominem and irrelevant. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't insinuate. I gave explicit examples where you responded to canvassing at WT:ARS and suggested you might not want to create yet another example. Levivich[block] 01:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Happy summer/winter
Sunshine! | ||
Hello Levivich! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Interstellarity, you too! Levivich[block] 02:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Help button
Wikipedia:Help button, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Help button and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Help button during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
XRV
Hi Levivich. Thank you so much for your efforts at WT:XRV. As you can probably tell, what happened there in January still really riles me up and I feel the need to step back from it a lot. But it seems like we're really close to getting it back on track, in no small part thanks to you keeping the discussion focused and moving forwards. What do you think the next step is? Are there are any remaining 'blockers'? Or should we be looking to try and get consensus to restore the incoming links? – Joe (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Joe, I was also pretty riled up about what happened in January and am glad things are moving back on track. I hate to admit it but that IP editor's reverse psychology worked :-P I do not see any remaining blockers at this point -- I don't see any issues with scope remaining, the minimum time thing is still up in the air but isn't a blocker, structure and archiving are agreed upon (at least for now)... I noticed Thryd's comment about blockers on the talk page and just posted a question asking what he sees as the current blockers, so we'll see. Otherwise, my take is that there was local consensus to temporarily delink, and I think we're close (if not at) having local consensus that this temporary delinking time is over and we can now restore the inbound links. So I'd say let's see if Thryd or anyone else has any blockers that we need to iron out, and if not, we have local consensus to end the temporary delinking. Levivich[block] 16:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I think we can work through them easily enough. I don't think we need an RfC to restore the incoming links, but I'm minded to have one anyway in the spirit of compromise. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Compromise and finality. Another RfC would put some arguments to bed. Levivich[block] 10:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think there's a bit of a catch-22: due to the pause in the process, there aren't enough interested parties watching the talk page to generate a consensus to restore the links similar in numbers to the one that paused the process. To get more involvement, there would have to be a post to somewhere like the village pump. But at that point, there's little difference with just having a formal RfC. isaacl (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Compromise and finality. Another RfC would put some arguments to bed. Levivich[block] 10:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I think we can work through them easily enough. I don't think we need an RfC to restore the incoming links, but I'm minded to have one anyway in the spirit of compromise. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Uncollapse
I think it was at AE or Arb (close enough) where you mentioned collapsed discussions/decisions and how difficult it is to find them. When I queried about that same issue a while back, it was suggested that I install User:SD0001/AllCollapseToggle.js. Remembering to uncollapse when you arrive at the page is the key for it to work. Atsme 💬 📧 02:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Nifty, thanks Atsme! Levivich[block] 02:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Reply tool
I was thinking about the conversation we had recently about the growth team and how that eventually turned into other things, including the WMF in general. How there's community alternatives to the reply tool and that tooks years, that sort of thing. But the reply tool doesn't "ping"/give a notification to whoever you're replying to, as far as I'm aware it's not even an option unless you "ping" someone yourself in the source editor version of it. You'd think that would be something that would've been considered when developing the reply tool... or like in general. Wikipedia is the only example that immediately comes to mind of a website where you have to go out of your way (e.g. use a watchlist or check whether your contributions are the current version of a page) to know when someone sends you some kind of message/replys to you. For an online community that has a lot of discussions and ideally a lot of collaboration, that seems like a massive oversight. Interestingly enough, this thread is the first time I've seen the update for the new section appearance. Maybe my optimism isn't entirely unwarranted, but I do think you have a point about how a non-profit that recieves millions could likely ultilize that money more effectively. Clovermoss (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The issue is that old school editors like me don't want to receive notifications on every reply, and so wouldn't favour making this a default setting (even if it could be overridden on a per-reply basis). As I understand it, the reply tool does make it (not much, but) a little bit easier to generate a ping notification with its keyboard shortcut (available from the visual editor interface). isaacl (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. Is that because you'd recieve like a million notifications? I prefer pings in general but I know that people don't use them consistently so I watchlist things too. Or I watchlist pages I want to lurk because I find what goes on there interesting but rarely have something useful to say. I also participate in discussions sparingly in general so my perspective on this may be a bit different. But it's easy to miss something among a flood of changes on the watchlist page, especially if you're not checking the diff to see if they're responding to you or someone else. Clovermoss (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also, is the shortcut you're referring to the same as how you would ping someone normally? Because I ping people the way I always do w/the reply tool or standard source editor, but if there's an easier way to do it that I'm not aware of that would be useful to know. Clovermoss (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I watchlist pages and then look at diffs in the history to see what new comments have been added. (I use the visual diff beta feature for greater legibility, though I'll switch back and forth with the text diff view based on what is most helpful for the current set of diffs.) This allows me to review all conversation, not just direct replies to me. With the subscription feature, I use that when I'm only interested in a specific section. That does generate a ton of notifications, but the edits can be reviewed in a group, so I just have to ignore the literal number that is displayed. isaacl (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just for you, I've temporarily re-enabled the reply tool :) Typing @ in the visual editor interface brings up a pop up box where you can type in any user name which will generate auto-completed choices, but it also provides me with two initial choices. It appears to have searched within the thread for applicable user names and gives me a choice of Clovermoss and Levivich (maybe based on the page title?). So it's a bit easier to generate a ping than in the source editor interface. isaacl (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. @ makes sense because it's what other websites typically use. But Wikipedia has always had such a different interface that it didn't even occur to me that that was an option that might work. Clovermoss (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The last icon in the tool bar (which looks like a person's head with a plus above it) inserts an @ symbol, which I think is how I realized that typing the @ manually also works. isaacl (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, perhaps it listed Levivich because I have a reply in another section to them. So it might be less smart than could be hoped, but still helpful on many (if not most) pages. Since I don't usually have the reply tool enabled, I'll let you experiment. ;-) isaacl (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eh. I mean people typically get notifications if someone posts a message to their talk page, so I'd argue that it'd actually be smart if it recognizes a difference like that and not just whoever you've replied to on a page. I still think it'd be a useful default to give people notifications to replies automatically unless they disable it (but the key point here is options). I guess my overall point is that the WMF does do good things, but a lot of progress is very slow for the financial resources they have. But at the same time, I don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes, and I'm sure to some extent people are trying their best, y'know? It's also impossible to please everyone. But if there's a recurring theme going on, people should feel like they're being listened to. I also don't think that the WMF should be immune from criticism just because they do great things. There's a lot of misunderstandings among active editors (including myself!) about how certain things function, but that's an even greater issue outside of the bubble of people who participate here. You also have some issues with WMF staff (obviously not everyone) who don't know much about specific going-ons with the broader community... there's overlap but it's more like a venn diagram than everyone understands what's going on on both sides and can effectively communicate with each other kind of thing. At least that's been my impression of how things tend to work, it's possible I'm wrong.
- If you ask a random person in real life if they've ever heard of the Wikimedia Foundation/what it does, a lot of people are going to give you a confused look. Because basically everything they do is equated with Wikipedia and everything the volunteers do is equated with donations and it's just one big huge mess of misconceptions. Clovermoss (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I provided as feedback before somewhere, I think I should be able to specify that I want to be notified about replies to my comment (which is a typical approach for other sites with comments), rather than have the decision made by the person responding. isaacl (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to advocate. It's weird that there isn't a way to choose to be notified if someone literally clicks "reply" to you. It just seems like a massive oversight to me. I also agree with Levivich that some good changes seem to be happening, hopefully those continue. Clovermoss (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I believe all the necessary backend infrastructure is already implemented to be notified for any replies and descendent replies, as we've been told that's how subscribing to a section works (you get subscribed to the first comment in the section). There just need to be a user interface created for the feature. However more work would have to be done to be notified only for direct replies. isaacl (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to advocate. It's weird that there isn't a way to choose to be notified if someone literally clicks "reply" to you. It just seems like a massive oversight to me. I also agree with Levivich that some good changes seem to be happening, hopefully those continue. Clovermoss (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I provided as feedback before somewhere, I think I should be able to specify that I want to be notified about replies to my comment (which is a typical approach for other sites with comments), rather than have the decision made by the person responding. isaacl (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. @ makes sense because it's what other websites typically use. But Wikipedia has always had such a different interface that it didn't even occur to me that that was an option that might work. Clovermoss (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The new talk page beta thing they have somewhere (I forget) seemed like a step in that right direction (towards a "normal" format). The new CEO has said she wants to make the product tech stuff a priority so I'm hopeful that means a bigger share of budget going to product development (and hopefully that leads to a better product). (Yes I know the last two aren't causally connected.) Levivich[block] 05:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
"Push the button"
I guess folks just have to imagine which kind of editor you are, who has all those Wikibabes queuing up for a Talk page ride? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that was Levivich's intent, Martinevans123. Clovermoss (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I've got an entirely different button for that: Levivich[block] 00:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had you down as the nerdy one with the glasses. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nah, I never went back to showbiz after they rejected my idea for a Nerdy Spice. Levivich[block] 15:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So all those rumours about you being "off his tits on smack with Madonna" may not be true after all?Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)- See, this is how rumors get started, that was all just a big misunderstanding: Madonna and I were on her smack, working on the Tits group. Levivich[block] 15:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am so sorry about that. I have struck that all now as I understand that, just like Bill Clinton, you never inhaled. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- See, this is how rumors get started, that was all just a big misunderstanding: Madonna and I were on her smack, working on the Tits group. Levivich[block] 15:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nah, I never went back to showbiz after they rejected my idea for a Nerdy Spice. Levivich[block] 15:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had you down as the nerdy one with the glasses. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I've got an entirely different button for that: Levivich[block] 00:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)