tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39421895698078091092024-03-13T02:00:55.722+00:00Musings of MajorlyJust some random thoughts from MajorlyMajorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-9700294296997985822009-06-30T22:17:00.000+01:002009-06-30T22:17:27.972+01:00Top five tips for writing a featured articleWell, my latest foray into the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cheadle_Hulme/archive1">featured article candidates</a> process was a surprisingly smooth one, and my <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheadle_Hulme">article</a> is now featured. It was a long slog, but well worth it. When I started out, it looked like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheadle_Hulme&oldid=264946731">this</a>. A mess, basically. Just over five months of hard work later, it is now a featured article. I learnt <span style="font-weight: bold;">a lot</span> during the process, and I'd like to share what I learnt with everyone.<br /><br /><ol><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Write about what you know, or what interests you greatly.<br /></span>In my<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span></span>case I wrote about where I live. I know the area extremely well, and while some might argue this may affect <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research">WP:NOR</a> issues, I did not feel it did for me. Additionally, the books I used are not published in great numbers - this is generally the case for local history books. They are, however, available in the local library. Every single book used was from the library, and were invaluable in finding facts to write about. A final point is that I <span style="font-style: italic;">enjoy</span> finding out about my local area. I have been interested in history particular, since a young age, so it was enjoyable to research and write about.</li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Take your time with it.<br /></span>This is a good lesson I learned. I wanted to take it to FAC earlier than I did, because I thought it was ready. However, it was clearly not, as I took it to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review">peer review</a> instead and got invaluable feedback. There is no need to rush it; there's no time limit, it'll still be there tomorrow.</li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Use free images.</span><br />It is a free encyclopedia, right? Unfree images don't help the FAC, and take up a lot of time from what I have seen. On my FA, all the images are free ones.</li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Make use of other people.</span><br />I was lucky enough to be working on an article that is part of a very active Wikiproject, with some of Wikipedia's best editors on it. I used them - frequently. There are some sections on the article that I did not even have to author, as someone else did them for me. Working on a FA does not need to be a solo process.</li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Get it to GA first.</span><br />Some may disagree with this, but I think it is a good a way as getting feedback as any. And if it fails you know you have a long way to go. But you still have feedback to work on, which is good.</li></ol><span style="font-weight: bold;">A final point:</span> make sure you enjoy what you're doing, above anything else. Stuff the MOS, 1a criterion and other minor things while you're writing up the content. Deal with the nitty-gritty bits once you've put what needs saying. Good luck, should you try a FA yourself!Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-28879942041284868942009-06-29T14:35:00.000+01:002009-06-29T14:35:48.731+01:00Why do so many negative people edit Wikipedia?Lately I've noticed a several people around Wikipedia whose only purpose seems to be to criticise and take offence at every single thing that goes on. These people range from new editors, to admins who have been here for years.<br /><br />For example: there are numerous editors with a ridiculous idea that admins are out to "get them". To them, Wikipedia is an online battle: the fight between the editors and IRC admins... utter nonsense. It is certainly childish playground mentality at best. There are no gangs, for goodness sake.<br /><br />There are other editors whose purpose is to act like some sort of martyr amongst their friends. Deliberate trolling is stuck up for under the guise of "opinions are allowed", and when the troll is blocked, the troll is made out to be a hero. Madness.<br /><br />Then there's the infamous requests for adminship page. This is the best place to find negative people - just look at the oppose column on any random RFA! OK, not all opposes are dumb. I actually saw a fairly decent oppose today, based on age of all things. It's fine to oppose people - I've done it myself, numerous times. The problem is, the <a href="http://majorlyhot.blogspot.com/2008/04/rfa-ideology.html">ideology</a> several people have. They actually come to the RFA looking for reasons to say "no". Unbelievable - it's not like we have a limit on how many admins we can have. What's wrong with being positive, and looking for reasons to say yes? I simply can't understand the negativity of some people. And then, there's the opposes themselves. Let's face it, many opposes are scraping the barrel. But when such opposes are as blunt as "<span style="font-weight: bold;">No frickin' way</span>", we have problems. What an insulting way to say no. How completely unnecessary. Yet, people do it.<br /><br />The negative people on Wikipedia are thankfully a minority. Most of us edit for fun, and have a good time doing it. We don't go looking for fights, or enemies to make, and we get on writing articles or whatnot. I hope these negative people aren't as angry and sour in real life.Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-19916436609628130882009-01-24T15:31:00.000+00:002009-01-24T15:31:19.429+00:00WebsiteI have often thought about creating my own website, and hosting this blog under my own domain name. I first created my own website, as far as I can tell, on 5 October 2002. It's still in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, and I very helpfully put a "created site" date on it. I won't link to it, because I created it when I was naive and thoughtless with regards to my personal information, but it is extremely plain, created using HTML, no special effects, and includes pages about Disney films and the Simpsons. Pretty much, it looks just awful today in the world of Web 2.0. Obviously my ICT skills have improved much since, but I have to wonder if it is really worth creating a site about <span style="font-style: italic;">me</span><span>. I have to wonder, do people actually care? I don't have a lot of hobbies: most of my time is either spent on the internet on Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube or Yahoo Answers, or else I'm studying. Apart from this blog (and of course my Facebook profile), I don't put anything about <span style="font-style: italic;">myself</span> on to the web. Not because of fear of stalkers or for want of privacy, but because I don't think people actually care who I am. You'll notice that I haven't created a profile on Blogger, and I tend to keep information about me on Wikipedia to a minimum (I don't use my real name, don't give my age, though I do give my general location and there are pictures of me on Commons from various meetups). I have often thought about being really open - there are some that list all their phone numbers and their home and work address, as well as giving their full name. It would be nice, but I think to myself, what's the point? Would people look at me any differently? Would they care who Majorly really is? That's why I don't create my own website. I don't think people care enough, and I don't particularly either.<br /></span>Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-60089235960480727052009-01-21T18:56:00.001+00:002009-01-22T01:47:33.737+00:00Why RFA talk is uselessEveryone knows that RFA talk is a bit pub-like at times. What I mean is, it's all chitchat, no action. And I'll prove it too. Sit back, and let Majorly tell you a bit about the history of RFAs.<br /><br />I have picked a recent successful RFA to compare: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Icewedge_2">Icewedge's 2nd</a>, which passed on 24th December 2008. A fairly average RFA - a self nomination, a second try, and nearly 100 participants. Quite normal aspects for any RFA, which is one of the reasons I picked it.<br /><br />Now let's go back a year, and take a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Islander_2">Islander's 2nd</a>, which passed a year ago today. A self-nomination again, but with an additional co-nomination by Rudget. It's also his 2nd go, but has only 60 participants this time. Let's compare it with Icewedge's. Islander has a lot of questions: 15 to be precise, and Icewedge has 14. So, the number of questions is still just as high as it was in early 2008. Both contain "stock questions" (i.e. questions that have a right and wrong answer, such as "When should a cool-down block be used"). The rest is all similar, with similar participants as well. A major difference not on the RFA is the amount of RFAs that had passed in January 2008 was much, much higher than January 2009: 17 prior to Islander, but only 3 this month so far.<br /><br />Back to January 2007 now, with a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BozMo">BozMo's RFA</a>. At the top one can immediately see there's a minor formatting change in that there is no table of contents. The headers to produce this must have been added during 2007. Additionally, while today it is common for the bureaucrat to put "Closed by ~~~~ at ~~~~~", in those days, "Ended at ~~~~~" was sufficient. This is another self-nomination, and a fairly short one at that. I'm not sure how today's crowd would take such a candidate. According to one of the opposers, he has 893 mainspace edits, which is a significantly low amount in today's climate. A big difference between this one at Islander's is the amount of questions is halved. While the four extra questions are all stock questions, there are still significantly fewer. You may also notice the use of the word "voters" in question one. The 73 participants in this also differ quite a bit from today's RFA regulars. Another additional difference is the opposition over edit count. While today the focus is more on <span style="font-style: italic;">where</span> one focuses ones edits, today it doesn't matter so much (for most people). The three opposes in Islander's RFA actually suggest why he would make a bad admin. The opposers for Bozmo merely make vague gestures that he hasn't got "enough" edits.<br /><br />Back to January 2006 now: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dsmdgold">to Dsmdgold's RFA</a>, from January 2006. An obvious difference here is the lack of background colours. These came into effect in 2006. The headers are still there though. This is another self-nomination. There are only 49 participants, though this is not really reflective of the period (there were at least two RFAs with more than 100 participants in January 2006). One might be wondering "Where are the questions???" Well, scroll down. They were moved up in 2006 so people actually read them. Whether this was a good thing or not I don't know. This user has 9 questions, but they're all stock questions again. The number of questions dipped up and down, but often no optional ones were asked at all. Despite having 8 opposes, that section looks suspiciously short. Normally, that section includes large conversations of some kind or another. It didn't then as much. Most of the opposes are opposing over edit summary usage - something today would probably not be heard of, and usually moves a concerned user to support on the promise the candidate will set the preferences to prompt them to use one. A user of note that appears in this RFA is Masssiveego, who some may today substitute with the name "Kmweber".<br /><br />Back another year now, to January 2005, and to <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jni">Jni's RFA</a>. This one lacks headers completely, and is remarkably short, with just 26 participants (or voters, as that word was allowed then). The oppose side is nearly empty, apart from a single oppose that has nothing to do with the candidate. A cursory glance of the RFAs of that date show that most passed with no or very few opposes. An additional point is that most of the supports are votes, and provide no explanation. There is also a lack of link to edit summary usage and edit count. There are only three questions as well.<br /><br />2004 now. I have not got round to making archive pages for the earliest RFAs, so this one exists only as an old page version: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins&oldid=2386415#Morven">Morven's RFA</a>. This is a very big difference from Jni's RFA. The obvious point is it wasn't on its own subpage, but added manually. While Jni's RFA had a few boldfaced "Supports", this one has none - the trend to bolden the vote must have come in later. There were also only 14 voters. This request has no opposes, and very votey supports. Well it was a vote then, so understandable. There are also no questions, no ending time, no tally, no sections. Also no numbers, but bullets. It's remarkably different from any RFA today.<br /><br />So what has changed at RFA? In summary:<br /><ul><li>The requests are now on subpages (introduced 2004).<br /></li><li>The requests are closed with a header and coloured background depending on the result (headers introduced 2005, colour background introduced 2006).</li><li>The support, oppose, neutral, and all the other headers are now actually sections (introduced in 2008).</li><li>A tally and end date have been added (introduced 2004).</li><li>Standard questions have been added (introduced 2004). They were moved to the top in 2006.<br /></li><li>Links to the edit summary and edit count tools have been added (introduced 2005).</li><li>"Votes" are not votes anymore, but "comments" or "!votes" (changed in 2007, probably following the aftermath of the controversial closure of Carnildo's 3rd RFA at 61% the previous September). The comments are numbered now, instead of bulleted (changed 2004). The actual vote (support, oppose, neutral) is now bolded (became standard in 2005). People nowadays tend to provide reasoning more than before.<br /></li><li>There was very little discussion in RFAs. Discussion is much more common today.</li></ul>There are some other points missed here, obviously since only a few were analysed. For example, the edit count was actually posted to the RFA itself in 2006, before being moved to the talk page.<br /><br />What is established by the list above however, that apart from a few minor formatting and design changes, the only real change on the approach to RFA is that it was very much a "Support ~~~~" thing, and very little discussion occurred. Today, while many people still support without a reason, most actually do, and there's a <i>lot</i> of discussion on most requests. That is probably the only thing that has changed. And it wasn't as a result of RFA talk either.<br /><br />So, judging by the lack of real change produced by this talk page, I propose we stop wasting our time here and do something else instead.Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-73235903236450208992009-01-15T23:47:00.000+00:002009-01-15T23:47:04.550+00:00Commons RFA is turning into English Wikipedia RFAYes, you read right. It's a bit of a late post really because it's been happening slowly but surely for months, but I thought I'd write about it now. People try to promote the idea that Commons is a lovely place to work, where everyone works together in peace and harmony. Frankly, I prefer English Wikipedia. This is one of the reasons I resigned on Commons. While English Wikipedia is far from perfect, its community is larger so there are a larger variety of people.<br /><br />While not strictly an RFA, <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/ABF_%28bureaucrat%29">ABF</a> is having an RFB on Commons. People make a huge deal out of bureaucratship. I wish I knew why. Perhaps it's because they have the only irreversable action that can be given to just anyone (as opposed to Checkuser/Oversight where one must be identified and over 18). I have never understood why bureaucrats do not have ability to reverse +sysop. So much so, I managed to get the ability added on Meta-Wiki.<br /><br />Anyhow, this RFA has had three opposes in particular that bother me, all by respected admins on the project, one a bureaucrat, two checkuser and two steward. Such people have influence, and they know it. So it is very important they use it wisely. Let's look at the opposes in question:<br /><a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Symbol_oppose_vote.svg" class="image" title="Symbol oppose vote.svg"></a><blockquote><a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Symbol_oppose_vote.svg" class="image" title="Symbol oppose vote.svg"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Symbol_oppose_vote.svg/15px-Symbol_oppose_vote.svg.png" border="0" width="15" height="15" /></a> <b>Oppose</b>. ABF is a very good contributor to Wikimedia Commons, but I feel unsure about giving him the big mop. While I have no reason to believe he'd be unfit for user renaming or SUL stuff, I am really uncomfortable with giving him the ability to promote sysops. Nothing personal, I think ABF is a good sysop, but I happen to think we have much better candidates for bureaucratship. <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Guillom" title="User:Guillom">guillom</a> 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)</blockquote>What's wrong with this? There's no evidence or examples. Not a single one. While RFA is of course about giving ones opinion on a candidate, it would be immensely helpful for the rest of us to give some kind of reason for this "bad feeling". Guillom has simply not explained <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span> ABF would be bad choice, just that he would be.<br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Symbol_oppose_vote.svg" class="image" title="Symbol oppose vote.svg"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Symbol_oppose_vote.svg/15px-Symbol_oppose_vote.svg.png" border="0" width="15" height="15" /></a> <b>Oppose</b> I believe ABF is a hard worker and I am grateful for all the time he puts into Wikimedia Commons. I wish, however, he would have asked the advice of sitting bureaucrats before accepting this nomination. This is a completely different role than sysop; and while I trust ABF's abilities for the sysop role, I have to oppose his nomination for bureaucrat. This is not personal, nor is it an indictment of my faith in ABF's good faith and honest intent. <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Bastique" title="User:Bastique">Bastique</a> <b><sup><a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bastique" title="User talk:Bastique">demandez</a></sup></b> 19:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)<br /></blockquote>What's wrong with this? Since when do people need to ask advice before nominating? We don't ask before making an admin nomination - why are bureaucrats so special? Bureaucratship is indeed a completely different role, but only as an historical accident. If things had gone differently, admins and bureaucrats could share the same abilities. It does <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> require any better judgement than an admin, even less so. I trust ABF to evaluate consensus on RFDs, as we should since he's an admin. Therefore, he should be trusted to evaluate consensus on RFAs, which are really a vote count anyway. Any sensible person with a calculator can do it. Bastique continues, explaining he trusts ABF as an admin, but not bureaucrat. He neglects to explain why though, and that it isn't personal (though of course it is personal, it's ABF's RFB...)<br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Symbol_oppose_vote.svg" class="image" title="Symbol oppose vote.svg"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Symbol_oppose_vote.svg/15px-Symbol_oppose_vote.svg.png" border="0" width="15" height="15" /></a> <b>Oppose</b> - ABF is a fine administrator but simply is not the best choice for this role. Despite ABF's activity in nominating users for adminship (and his participation in other RFAs where they are not the nominator), I do not think they have the requisite judgement to perform promotions. This is not to say that they are untrustworthy <i>per se</i>, however they are not well suited for <i>this</i> role. I too wish ABF had consulted some trusted users (whether bureaucrats or not) prior to this request. I would have much preferred to avoid making such statements in public, however given that this is a live request, I find myself unable to support this candidate. <b>— <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mike.lifeguard" title="User:Mike.lifeguard"><b style="color: rgb(51, 0, 153);">Mike</b></a>.<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike.lifeguard" title="User talk:Mike.lifeguard"><b style="color: rgb(51, 0, 153);">lifeguard</b></a></b> | <sup><a href="http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike.lifeguard" class="extiw" title="b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard"><span style="color: rgb(51, 0, 153);">@en.wb</span></a></sup> 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)</blockquote><br />Mike does not think he has the necessary "judgement" to perform promotions (though promotions are not difficult at all). As with the other two, he does not explain <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span> he gets that idea, just that he does. And again, who is to suggest that ABF didn't contact anyone first (not that it's necessary)? He is supported by Cecil, a bureaucrat, who clearly thinks differently to the others. And there are other trusted people supporting him.<br /><br />I am currently supporting him. I don't have issues with people opposing, but opposing with improper or lack of reasoning is unhelpful to the candidate, other voters, and merely looks like well-poisoning. Being opposed is not a pleasant thing, I assure you, especially from well-respect users. Pull your finger out and oppose properly if you have to do it.<br /><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-83471288654750160122009-01-13T13:14:00.001+00:002009-01-13T13:16:38.037+00:00Template RFA opposesThere's a lot of people who like voting in RFAs. Contrary to popular opinion, I have never been one to vote in every single RFA up there. I, like many, only tend to comment on people who I am familiar with, or who I have seen around. I also started extending support to candidates whose RFAs were getting tanked by opposers with poor rationales.<br /><br />There's a particular poor rationale I can't stand and that's the old "lack of project space edits". I'm not entirely sure how Wikipedia: space matters in the grand scheme of things. We could run our project well enough without the entire project space for certain. This is fairly old news, but to those who are unfamiliar, Stifle, a Wikipedia admin and OTRS volunteer, is a regular RFA voter. What's wrong with that, you may ask. It was brought to my attention some time ago, that Stifle uses an algorithm (as can be seen on his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=263072881#Requests_for_adminship">userpage</a>) for voting on RFAs. He has just opposed Kanonkas with a templated rationale, that he often uses (Lack of Wikipedia: space edits indicates likely lack of knowledge policy). There are several things wrong with that. First, it's an oppose that is uncertain. Stifle has no idea of the knowledge of the user, as indicated by the word "likely". He is simply assuming that because a user has fewer than 500 edits in the Wikipedia: space, they must automatically be stupid and completely clueless about how Wikipedia works. Second, knowledge policy is gained not by making tons of "per nom" edits in Wikipedia: space. It's gained by writing the encyclopedia, something that Stifle does <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Stifle&namespace=0">very little</a> of. It's also gained by reading the policy pages, something that cannot be proved the candidate did, even through the use of questions. Even as an admin myself in later days, I still had to check the policy page just in case when I wasn't sure. I'm certain many admins do the same. It's unreasonable to expect admins to know all 40+ policies by heart.<br /><br />I'm sure Stifle is a lovely person, but in my opinion, his ideas and approach to requests for adminship is all wrong. Candidates need reviewing properly, not just judged by their edit count in one namespace.Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-57404078521362154052009-01-12T01:28:00.000+00:002009-01-12T01:28:43.875+00:00RFA community is brokenIt's fairly obvious, but it's not the RFA process that's broken. The same system has been used ever since it was created in mid 2003: propose a candidate, support or oppose, promote if there's consensus. Of course, it's not quite like that nowadays: over time, people were able to go "neutral" (a pointless concept if you ask me, if you can't decide, don't vote); a set of standard questions were added to every request; the bureaucrat group was created; and of course the whole "!vote/vote" thing. It is a vote, always has been. Trying to claim a numbered list with a tally on top is a discussion is astounding. Then of course, trying to initiate a discussion will get a disgruntled opposer to bite your head off with "Wah!! Stop badgering me!". So, it is a vote, and always has been.<br /><br />So trying to claim RFA is broken is like saying RFA has never worked, which is simply untrue since we have created nearly 1500 admins by that process. Though our community is larger, and there are more automated tools available such as Huggle, it is silly to say RFA is broken; though numbers have been dwindling as of late, people have still been passing RFA with flying colours. If it was truly broken, no one would not be passing.<br /><br />What the main problem is, causing RFA to crumble, are the people who vote. Ultimately, it's their fault numbers of promotions are low, because they oppose so often, and so easily, therefore preventing RFAs from passing, and causing anyone considering it to think again.<br /><br />RyanGerbil10, a relatively quiet and uncontroversial admin, expresses his thoughts about the process <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite&diff=prev&oldid=263482594">here</a>. I do agree with him - it is fairly ridiculous he would probably fail an RFA if he requested now with the experience he had when he ran. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=263470153#Admins.2C_own_up_now...">This</a> is even sillier. It is suggesting that some of the project's most respected admins would probably fail an RFA, if they ran today with the same experience they had when they did.<br /><br />I do not blame the process. When Ryan <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RyanGerbil10">ran</a> in July 2006, the RFA looks fairly similar to today. That's because it's more or less the same. The process has not changed. The people have. I don't know why, I don't know how. But it's for the worse.Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-44471819691775176512009-01-09T01:12:00.002+00:002009-01-09T01:45:15.656+00:00Checkuser and Oversight appointmentsI just realised that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight_appointments">proposal</a> to allow the Community to give proper input into who gets the most "big deal" rights is strikingly similar to a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkusership">proposal</a> I tried to push through almost a year ago, but failed when ArbCom vetoed it. Mine was slightly different at first, because it didn't involve ArbCom unnecessarily. Apart from that though, it is essentially the same. Why has it taken a year for this to get going? And why did people like Mackensen, Sam Korn and FloNight dislike the idea so much in January 2008, claiming all sorts of things: such as it was illegitimate, it would never work, the current system worked fine, the appointing was ArbCom's "gift", and an RFA-style process would not work because it's a popularity contest. And yet... it's going to happen, thanks to the 2009 Committee, who have so far impressed me immensely. 2008 was an extremely disappointing year arb-wise, which is probably why they caused my proposal to fail. But it won't now, which is good. But it's a year late, thanks to the 2008 arbcom who were pretty poor if I'm honest.Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-13229892707338533582009-01-07T15:05:00.000+00:002009-01-07T15:05:17.939+00:00Enigmaman's RFAThe latest drama to hit enwiki RFA is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman_2">Enigmaman's RFA</a>. It's his second RFA, that was apparently going well. Very well actually, at 46/0/1 when it was put "on hold". Last month, a record 12 admins <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFormer_administrators&diff=261057788&oldid=254544432">resigned</a>, as well as two bots, so I'm not exactly sure if we do have enough admins at the moment. Anyway, Deskana put the RFA on hold, and posted the following message to the talk page:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>I have placed this RFA on hold.</p> <p>During the course of a checkuser investigation into an IP that would be editing in violation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry" title="Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings">Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry</a> if it belonged to a user that was editing while logged out, it became apparent that this IP was infact owned by Enigmaman.</p> <p>I strongly suspected that many of the supports in this RFA would be retracted if they could see the edits in question, but the privacy policy prevents me from disclosing the IP without the permission of Enigmaman. It does not seem appropriate for me, as a bureaucrat, to allow this RFA to continue when many of the supporters were unaware of the entire situation regarding Enigmaman. Therefore, I see two options.</p> <ol><li>Enigmaman refuses to allow me to disclose his IP. This means that I restart the RFA with a note that the user has been making inappropriate edits while logged out, but am unable to provide diffs due to the privacy policy.</li><li>Enigmaman allows me to disclose his IP, meaning the RFA can be restarted with the diffs in question in plain view for people to review.</li></ol> <p>The edits themselves aren't actually that bad, but I know the RFA crowd can be quite scrutinous when it comes to incivility. I actually think option 2 would work out better for Enigmaman, but that's just my opinion. The edits themselves were probably not blockable, but I imagine people would oppose his RFA for the edits. I probably would.</p> <p>I hope people understand my actions here. They're not normal bureaucrat actions, but desperate times...</p> <p>--<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deskana" title="User:Deskana">Deskana</a> <small><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deskana" title="User talk:Deskana">(talk)</a></small> 21:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)</p></blockquote>He actually took a while to post this, so people were fairly curious at to what the issue was. On IRC I asked Deskana jokingly if this was going to cause drama, he said "maybe". I think that was an understatement.<br /><br />I was fairly surprised when I saw what was written. It was then revealed that Deskana had not contacted Enigmaman in private first, before posting this statement. This is similar to an incident I was involved with in 2007, when Deskana publicly pointed someone out as a sockpuppeteer, without discussing with them in private. While Deskana has not revealed any private information himself, this whole fiasco has indirectly lead the IPs to be revealed by others, through pressure, something which is explicitly forbidden in the checkuser policy. It is my firm belief that checkuser is most certainly a big deal, unlike adminship, and even oversight. Oversight is mostly random phone numbers, addresses, and libellous information about people. Nothing about the actual editors, for the most part, and when it is there is trouble (think Zoophilia). Checkuser is for making catching sockpuppets easier, not publicly humiliating good editors. Deskana's post suggests that many people would switch to oppose if they could see the edits made. This is not the case, at least so far. Several have stated they will be switching from support to strong support (as I shall be). I had a look at the edits, of course. I certainly do not see them as problematic in a way to make me oppose. They aren't Enigmaman's greatest moment, but then who am I to say anything? :-)<br /><br />The whole thing was handled extremely poorly. It is obvious to all that Deskana should have contacted Enigmaman in private before publicly humiliating him on the RFA. I do not believe Deskana has the integrity skills required for the checkuser role. Tiptoety comments, asking "You feel he should resign because of this single incident? I see no pattern of mistakes or breaches of policy by Deskana, let's not get ahead of ourselves". Yes, I do. Checkuser is not like adminship or bureaucratship, where a few mistakes may be tolerated. I'm afraid this one mistake could have cost EM adminship, which he was easily on the way to getting at the time the RFA was paused. He was put under a lot of pressure, basically forced to reveal his IP, and has been unnecessarily embarrassed and humiliated on-wiki, in a situation that could have been solved without the general wiki population knowing about it. Surprising as it may seem, I agree with Jennavecia's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman_2#It.27s_amazing.">post</a>. The whole thing was a lot of shit-stirring for very little benefit indeed - and it looks like it'll have the opposite affect of what Deskana intended, because people will support because of how poorly Deskana handled this, and how well EM handled it. The whole thing was biased, as Deskana holds both checkuser and bureaucrat right, and apparently used both to unilaterally put a stop to EM's RFA, merely because he "suspected" a lot of people would switch if they saw the edits. I've seen the edits. My opinion has not changed at all. Well, it has - of Enigmaman, my opinion of him is higher. Of Deskana, he's a nice person with good intentions, but I feel he is not suited to continue with Checkuser.Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-59394361384379955192008-12-24T21:19:00.001+00:002008-12-24T21:22:44.170+00:00New leafWell it's nearly the end of 2008. It's been a tough year for me, both on and off wiki. Off has seen three deaths in my family, one especially close to me. I had been fortunate to never have experienced the death of a loved one until May 2007 when my friend died suddenly at the age of 16. Along with three family members passing away this year, a lot of work, personal problems, and stress IRL, I let myself go on the wiki, possibly around that time. I said a lot of stupid things. I did a lot of stupid things. I was angry at life, and sometimes took my anger out on people who didn't really deserve it. Things didn't help when my home was burgled recently, and my laptop was taken. I don't wish to excuse my behaviour, but these are simply some likely reasons why I might have changed from a highly respected editor to someone who many consider a troll.<br /><br />So I shall be turning over a new leaf for 2009. I apologise for all comments and actions I made that were unconstructive, ever. I do not consider myself a "bad person" or a "troll", and I wish to regain the respect I lost from people over the past year. I wish for forgiveness, and put the past behind me.Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-9583062042293826242008-08-29T08:12:00.000+01:002008-08-29T08:13:22.345+01:00Majorly RfCSo I created <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Majorly">an RfC</a> on myself. Following a rather disasterous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JamieS93">RfA</a> that I nominated, it was felt by some people that my actions on, and surrounding that RfA were inappropriate, or in some people's word's "despicable". Now, I offered to nominate Jamie months ago, after noticing her good work on articles on Christian Music. I started to talk to her on IRC, and after much persuasion she accepted a nomination. I regret very much that I did this. If I'd known how vicious the RfA crowd were this week, I'd have kept well away. As it happens, I didn't. Jamie unfortunately had the kind of username that gives away age. It seems the age crowd only like coming out at certain times: just a couple of months ago, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Soxred93_3">another editor</a> passed his <span style="font-style: italic;">third</span> RfA without a big problem. And of course, we all know of Anonymous Dissident, who <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_Dissident_2">passed</a> with 165 supports and a single oppose, in 2007. The age crowd must have been on vacation that week. I wonder if they'd have opposed if they had seen it, or knew his real age? I can only guess yes. Looking at some of the age opposes, some of them are well-reasoned, but others are just really awful. Consider oppose #1: "Kid admins have generally poor judgement". This shows that this particular opposer is already biased <span style="font-style: italic;">before</span> they voted. OK, we all have our standards. This editor has made it clear they never support teenagers. But my issue here is not the fact they have their standards, or their opinion. It's the blatant abuse of the process. When voting, you are supposed to review the candidate yourself for a good idea of what they're like. It's rather clear that this editor, and others neglected this important part of the process. It's all very well them saying they did afterwards, but the fact is, they have generalised, and stereotyped this editor without giving them a fair analysis.<br /><br />So, since my candidate is getting this rather poor treatment, I am naturally angry. I make a few comments, to the point of proposing that people don't actually have to look at contributions anymore, but can oppose for whatever reason they like (it's a vote after all). I start "badgering" a few people. Such people would not need badgering if they gave the candidate a fair review. You don't see me questioning the user who had issues with Jamie's AfD votes do you? That's because it's a completely fair oppose, and shows the user took the time to review her fairly. I'll "badger" votes that do not do this. It's incredibly easy to vote on an RfA. You can vote with "per above", "Not enough experience", "needs more time" etc - all are more acceptable that someone stating "Kid admins generally are immature". The funny thing is, I've not seen one smidgen of evidence proving that statement is true. Judging by some of the voters on the RfA, and the behaviour I've seen of some adult admins, I'd say the opposite is true. Jamie's conduct through the RfA was pretty exceptional. Obviously, hardly anyone noticed this under the dust cloud.<br /><br />What is now really irritating me, is that some of the opposers are using <span style="font-style: italic;">me</span> as the scapegoat for causing her RfA to go downhill! The <span style="font-style: italic;">only</span> people causing her RfA to go anywhere are the opposers. If they want to make frankly ridiculous votes saying "The nominator's behaviour is less than satisfactory", that's their lookout. I would hope such votes are discounted in the end - even the age ones are better than that. Really, these people are that desperate to oppose someone, that when they find nothing wrong with the candidate, they move to the nominator! Actually I've seen similar - where people oppose per whoever is supporting, and their contributions. It's so unbelievably negative. And to think that if she had simply left the fact she's in school of her userpage, she'd probably be doing so much better now! It really sucks.<br /><br />And now on to me. An admin by the name of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jennavecia">Jennavecia</a>, probably better known as LaraLove has decided I should be desysopped. This is following from nearly 9 months of particularly unpleasant encounters with this woman - I had, for a while been considering to create a requests for comments page on myself - I know I'm controversial, and have done some stupid things. She told me that an RfC was in the works. However I have grown impatient, and wish to get this thing out in the open, so I <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Majorly">created</a> it myself. Soon after its creation, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giggy">Giggy</a> whom I nominated for bureaucrat on Commons, spewed out a load of diffs, dating back to late 2007. There were so many! I went through each and every one. There was, perhaps, fewer than 5 <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> serious incidents. Each I admitted to and apologised for as necessary. There were a great many where he presented the evidence in a skewed manner, apparently deliberately linking to logs in such a way to make me look worse than I was. There were cases where I did minor things like endorse the block of someone, expressed my feelings about the BAG process and protected a page, which I began discussion on a mere 19 days later. Others were more major, but I don't need to discuss those here. I admitted I was wrong there and then, and no more needs to be said there.<br /><br />Anyway, a bunch of people have turned up, and if I wasn't all too awake this morning, I could have sworn I most of those people somewhere else - wait, I remember - RfA! Yes, it's every chronic opposer on the block, from Iridescent to Kojidude, to Malleus Fatuorum to Friday! They're all there, and they're all agreeing. I don't know what to think of this. I really don't.<br /><br />Then Jenna, aka Lara showed up, and proposed I be desysopped. Unlike the other people who made statements or proposals, Lara had nothing pleasant to say about me. This doesn't surprise me. She has told me before that she doesn't like me, and the feeling is mutual. What I don't understand, is why does she dislike me <span style="font-style: italic;">so much</span>? I mean, I don't think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Friday">Friday</a> and I will ever agree on anything, but at least he had <span style="font-style: italic;">something</span> positive to say, along with a lot of negative. Her description of me sounds like that of a vandal, or banned user. Now, as someone who has been on this site for over 2 years, and dedicated a hell of a lot of time to various aspects of the site, I am pretty offended to be described so harshly. Perhaps it's all true, but still, it's not nice to read. Then again, with my experience of Lara, she does say <span style="font-style: italic;">exactly</span> what she thinks, though on-wiki she's mild compared to off (and where she thinks I can't see).<br /><br />Anyway, I was given the choice - RfA or ArbCom? It was an easy choice. Just looking at the shithole I threw poor Jamie into, I'd go for ArbCom any day. If they desysop me, so be it. If not, I'll take the points from the RfC into account, and step back from RfA for a while. I actually want to do something else for a bit anyway, so it works out well either way for me.Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-39684789976879172382008-06-05T16:27:00.000+01:002008-06-05T16:29:32.715+01:00Stuff that happens on Wikipedia but rarely in real lifeSome words and phrases<br /><br />1. non notable<br />2. has good judgement<br />3. I echo the above<br />4. Per<br />5. Per above<br />6. As nominator<br />7. drama (when referring to arguing)<br />8. trolling<br />9. do you have a reference? A reliable one?<br />10. RFA spam<br />11. mass welcoming<br />12. machine editing<br />13. thought process<br /><br />There are plenty more, please leave them in the comments. You know you want to.<br /><br />Stuff you do but would never in real life:<br /><br />1. Warn a vandal (for smashing up your car)<br />2. Sign your name with ~~~<br />3. Click edit to talk<br />4. Click edit to do anything<br />5. Rollback any mistakes you make<br />6. Ban people you don't like from your house/land/office/school/workplace<br />7. Punish vandals by blocking them for 24 hours (block being down in a police cell)<br />8. Ensure that when you're writing, Section Headers Do Not Have Capital Letters<br />9. Make italics with two apostrophies (and bold with three)<br />10. Always write vote with a pointless exclamation mark before it. It really makes all the difference.<br /><br />Can you think of anymore?Majorlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01620431785470531303noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-52717115948486935532008-05-23T15:53:00.001+01:002008-05-23T16:01:00.958+01:00Commons is not mellowSome people say they love Commons. I have slowly started to hate it. I have found the community to be unfriendly and hostile. Most of my activity there recently is voting on RfAs, where the ridiculous strictness from enwiki has been gradually seeping through. There was a <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Voting_Approval_Poll">recent poll</a> where the community were essentially planning to ban any new editor from voting on RfAs because they didn't have the necessary edit count. How friendly and welcoming from this supposedly "mellow" community. As well as this, some were trying to prevent people running because they didn't have 500 edits - editcountitis, editcountitis, editcountitis. There's so much more to experience than edits. Not according to Herbythyme, whose joke of an RfB is passing as a popularity contest. Those supporting cannot have looked at the way he hypocritically opposes people who had more experience than he did, people who have more experience than some of his candidates, and of course his friends. It's just really unfair. Frequent opposes on RfA for such poor reasoning makes me ill frankly. It is people like Herbythyme and Marcus Cyron (another frequent opposer, whose opposes are normally in <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%2FRequests_and_votes%2FMaximBot&diff=10000282&oldid=9999731">all caps and with several exclamation marks</a>) who put me off editing Commons more, and probably put off good potential admins with their "must... oppose... not got x edits..." attitude. They seriously need to chill out a bit on these requests, lighten up a little and remember it's just a website. And it is not a big deal, especially if the editor is an admin on another project. You can go and promote the "mellow" essay all you like - Commons' most regular editors are the least mellow people I've ever encountered.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-75411743220937426762008-05-23T14:33:00.000+01:002008-05-23T14:34:54.619+01:00Board election candidatesSo the submission time for candidates for the Board is up. I thought I'd give my opinions on the candidates running. I'm aware the voting system isn't a support/oppose one, but I've put whether I'd support or not to give some idea of how I'd vote:<br /><br />Ad Huikeshoven (Dedalus) - who? I haven't heard of this guy, though he apparently is part of the Audit Committee. His credentials seem good, and he has good experience on the project. Depending on answers, I'd probably <span style="font-weight: bold;">support</span>.<br /><br />Alex Bakharev - I only recognise the name from English Wikipedia. While his statement isn't bad, I don't think it's particularly good either. It seems to be concentrated solely on English Wikipedia - while it is by far our biggest project, it is not the only one and I think that point is missed somewhere. Unless the answers are substantially better, I'd have to say no.<br /><br />Craig Spurrier (Cspurrier) - someone I recognise. He has a lot of jobs on the projects - particularly on Wikinews, as an ArbCom member, bureaucrat and checkuser. I wonder if he'll find the time for this. He was recently desysopped on Meta for lack of activity. I agree Wikipedia is considered by many as "the only" or "most important" project, and the others can be overlooked. I also agree the foundation has issues with PR. I would hope that should he be elected, he'd ensure to make board work a priority over anything like Wikinews arbcom. Depending on answers, I'd probably <span style="font-weight: bold;">support</span>.<br /><br />Dan Rosenthal (Swatjester) - another I know. He has good experience and I like his statement - a lot. There are some recent issues though, on English Wikipedia that I'd like to see addressed though. If these aren't brought up in questions, I probably will bring them up. If the answers are good, I'll definitely <span style="font-weight: bold;">support</span>.<br /><br />Gregory Kohs (Thekohser) - a pretty controversial candidate really. I believe his intentions are good, but again, I feel his issues are with English Wikipedia and not the project as a whole. I agree that the foundation has seen some pretty embarrassing events recently, but it's improving all the time, and a lot of the stuff is exaggerated and fabricated in any case. Unless he answers the questions really well, I'd have to say no.<br /><br />Harel Cain (Harel) - who? He's a bureaucrat/checkuser on Hebrew Wikipedia, and that seems to be about it. Apart from helping found the Israel chapter, I see a lack in activity anywhere else. His statement is good however, I'm agreeing with most of his points. Depending on answers, I'd probably <span style="font-weight: bold;">support</span>.<br /><br />Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (Cimon Avaro) - I know him from *cough* IRC mostly. His statement is pretty much based on the technical side of things - not really what I'm looking for I'm afraid. Unless answers are better, I'll have to say no.<br /><br />Kurt M. Weber (Kmweber) - just no. Need I say more?<br /><br />Matthew Bisanz (MBisanz) - know from English Wikipedia/IRC (again). He doesn't have the right experience for me, I don't think. Again, a concentration on English Wikipedia, and not much in the way of what he'll actually <span style="font-style: italic;">do</span>. Unless answers are better, I'll have to say no.<br /><br />Paul Williams (Skenmy) - know from IRC. Though he's mostly active on Wikinews, there's that English Wikipedia feeling again here. However, he does refer to the "sister projects" which is something. I also agree with the other comments in his statement. I'll also note he's the youngest candidate (younger than myself, so pretty young), but having spoken to him I'm confident he'll do a good job. Depending on the answers, I'll probably <span style="font-weight: bold;">support</span>.<br /><br />Ray Saintonge (Eclecticology) - most familiar with his posts on Foundation-l. He has a wealth of experience and is clearly dedicated and familiar with many aspects of the foundation. His statement is good as well. Depending on answers, I'll probably <span style="font-weight: bold;">support</span>.<br /><br />Ryan Postlethwaite - probably most familiar with this candidate, and the only one I've ever met in person. His statement is sadly a little rushed, however it's a good one, and I agree with the points he makes. He has good experience in a lot of areas, though perhaps a little limited to English Wikipedia. Despite this, depending on answers I'll probably <span style="font-weight: bold;">support</span>.<br /><br />Samuel Klein (Sj) - seen around, mostly on Meta. He's very experienced - editor for four years, having various jobs such as steward and organiser of Wikimania 2006. His statement reads well too. Depending on answers, I'll probably <span style="font-weight: bold;">support</span>.<br /><br />Steve Smith (Sarcasticidealist) - not too familiar with him. He's also fairly new, having only joined in February 2007. He appears to have a lot of real world experience. He's starting law school in September - I wonder if that will affect his time that he can concentrate on the board. I agree with all of his points except #4. He has already answered one of the questions, and I am unsatisfied with his answer, where he agrees with the board appointing people instead of the community. I'd probably say no based just on that, but we'll see.<br /><br />Ting Chen (Wing) - unfamiliar with him. He's an admin and bureaucrat on zh.wp, but I'm not sure his experience is enough. His statement isn't really bad, but it's not that good either and doesn't stand out. Unless his answers are good, I'll probably have to say no.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-2516915097154111452008-05-01T13:49:00.002+01:002008-05-01T13:55:20.762+01:00StuffApologies for the unoriginal title... not much to say, except I am giving my admin account a break, and am using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Al_tally">Al tally</a> (my IRC nick) for editing at the moment. Writing stuff is a lot more relaxing than arguing about the wording on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia/org/wiki/Template:RfA">RfA template</a>, or watching people cause drama with people like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmweber">Kurt Weber</a>, who opposes every self-nom RfA. Otherwise, I'm still engaged on Simple English Wikipedia and Meta (with the occasional Commons edit). I've also become surprisingly active on <a href="http://www.wikipediareview.com">Wikipedia Review</a>, what with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad">Newyorkbrad</a> business. I'm wondering if I really want to know who will replace him - obviously, no one can fill such a gaping hole (no, I'm not referring to size here) as adequately. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rebecca">Rebecca</a> would normally be the next choice, but since she's on the <a href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission">Ombudsman commission</a>, I doubt she will be able to. Next in line is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654">Raul654</a>. But knowing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo Wales">Jimbo</a>, it could be anyone - and likely to be a highly unsuitable untrustworthy person as well.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-16348502480700378152008-04-16T15:39:00.001+01:002008-04-16T15:41:50.999+01:00RfA ideologyOne of the many, many reasons RfA sucks is the ideology many people have. These are editors who, instead of coming to the request to look for reasons to support, will look for reasons to oppose. This is the complete wrong way to go about things. When RfA was created, it was not so much as a poll, more of an "OK then", perhaps like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFR">rollback</a>. If people had an objection, it was done in reluctance, and normally with a good reason (not "he forgot to sign his self nomination acceptance" or "doesn't have enough edits to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AIV">WP:AIV</a>", but more like "he's only been here a week, maybe after a month's experience"). Some people actually set out to find a reason to oppose. I find this crazy. Why the negativity? Is it some sort of power thing, where it makes people feel better by opposing someone? I can't think why people seem to feel it necessary to look for reasons to oppose someone, instead of support. This is why supports tend to be more "votey" than opposes. Supports should be automatic, and the editor should be promoted bar any significant objection. Those who mass oppose who complain when someone questions their oppose, will sometimes say "Why don't you question the supports without a rationale?" The answer is, it should be up to the opposers to show a proper argument, and not the supporters. Adminship should be given unless there's a significant opposition, and it should be up to the opposers to prove that the user is unsuitable.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-68341495964611854582008-04-13T23:14:00.002+01:002008-04-13T23:19:04.417+01:00MeetupI attended a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/London 8">meetup</a> in London today. It's my fourth one altogether, and I enjoyed it a lot. It's great to talk to people you see online in real life, and have a proper chat. I think that if there is a meetup being organised near you, make an effort to go to it. They really are good fun, and I'd highly recommend it.<br /><br />I've only met UK Wikipedians so far though, so hopefully my scholarship application for Wikimania will be accepted, and I'll be able to meet a wider range of people.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-10066748109243872472008-04-08T18:26:00.001+01:002008-04-08T18:29:32.630+01:00Bot Approvals GroupSomething that really irritates me is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BAG">Bot Approvals Group</a> (or BAG). The job of the BAG is to basically, as the name states, approve (or not approve) bots. I don't know if this is still the case, but the BAG are a self-appointed little group who basically control which bots do and don't get to do stuff on Wikipedia. At one point, there were "mini-RfAs" that allowed people to join this little group. Following an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals_group">MfD</a>, they promised reform (much like Esperanza lol) and made the process more open - anyone can simply add themselves to the list. But it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group">appears</a> they've reverted back to the old "vote for me" way. I think bots that do get approved need some sort of technical knowledge in some ways, but I think bots and the approval process are one of the most overlooked features on Wikipedia. Why would that be? Well, most bots go unnoticed (with perhaps the exception of vandalbots and archivebots). We just take all their hard work for granted (well, the coder's hard work, but you know what I mean). The approvals take part on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval">this</a> page. You may notice the lack of voting and the very few editors participating in the discussion. Indeed, the page cries out "Please remember that <b>all editors</b> are encouraged to participate in the requests listed below. Just chip in - your comments are appreciated more than you may think!" Right, unless you have a BAG badge, and then your comments aren't considered<br />nearly as important. Consider the stark contrast to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship">RfA</a> - people are literally falling over one another to vote on as many RfAs as possible. Why is this? Is the bot page not advertised, or well known? Could it be that people are scared to comment on bots, because bots are "scary and evil" and if you let a bad one slip through it could destroy the wiki? On <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes#Requests_for_Bot_Flags">Commons</a>, the bots are done on the same page as the RfAs. This makes sense to me - it's a bureaucrat's job either way, and having them in one place seems pretty sensible. Maybe to keep the page's loading time low, the transclusions could be turned to links? I just think the BAG is an utterly pointless waste of space. I'm currently participating in the discussion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coren/Bot_policy#BAG">here</a>, where I have proposed it be disbanded. Please comment there if you agree with me.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-42813986365330597472008-04-07T02:08:00.002+01:002008-04-07T03:39:18.201+01:00Optional RfA questionsInspired by a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=203867973">comment</a> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JayHenry">JayHenry</a>, I created the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cheatsheet">RfA cheatsheet</a>. Basically, I HATE optional RfA questions. I can just about tolerate questions that actually require some thought to answer, and are about the candidate. What I hate are what I call "stock" questions - copy and pasted to every RfA. Examples are "What do you think of WP:IAR?" and "When should cool down blocks be used?" There are problems with lots of pointless RfA questions. Firstly, it puts unneeded pressure on the candidate. The questions are described as optional, but they aren't really. People <span style="font-weight: bold;">will</span> oppose. Secondly, good answers don't show anything. All they prove is that someone is an RfA regular, or read the recent archives of successful requests. People don't actually have to have read the policy to answer the question - just look at the RfA below for a perfect answer! Reword it a bit, and there you go! With this cheatsheet, I intend to spoil the users' who are obsessed with pointless RfA questions fun. By giving "perfect" answer guides in one easy place, there will be no need for useless questions anymore! Now don't get me wrong, I don't want ignorant admins, which is why I haven't actually written an answer (I'm an RfA regular, barely familiar with any policies when I wrote the guide, by the way). I've linked to the policies involved, and given hints and ideas on what and what not to say. For those who say it's a bad idea, it's no worse than reading a few recent successful RfAs. It's just in one neater page. Goodbye, optional questions!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-7369740693542215122008-04-04T23:53:00.000+01:002008-04-04T23:54:51.629+01:00NotTheWikipediaWeekly MFD<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6">This</a> MFD is one of the most ridiculous I've seen in recent times. It's of the latest NTWW episode, which contains conversations with Somey (Wikipedia review admin), Moulton, and Greg Kohs. Apparently, the episodes are allowing banned users to contribute to Wikipedia via ogg... the banning policy does not state that users cannot speak on to Wikipedia, and if this is a convenient loophole then so be it. As most people know, I disagree with the part of the banning policy, where banned users edits are reverted on sight. If a user comes back and edits productively, they should just be left to get on with it. If they are discovered, then block them fine, but leave the edits. Anyway, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NonvocalScream">NonvocalScream</a>, an editor (at least under this name) here since January nominated the page for deletion. Luckily, most people are seeing sense and voting to keep, but there are some (who I expected) who are voting to delete. Which doesn't make much sense - they are voting to delete something that no banned editors have touched, or even spoken on! As I stated on the page, the ogg files are going to stay regardless of what happens to the page, as they are hosted on Commons, a separate site to Wikipedia. This nomination is completely pointless, won't achieve anything apart from drama, drama and more drama, and all it's done is given more publicity to NTWW - which is good.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-60865436679401878252008-03-28T16:44:00.002+00:002008-03-28T16:46:45.684+00:00Wikimania 2009 AnnouncedAfter a very very long delay, Wikimania 2009 was announced today: it'll be in Buenos Aires. Unfortunately, I know nothing about Argentina, and am only familiar with one editor from that country, so I don't really have an opinion on it. As always, I'd like to go, but whether I will is another question.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-32779967302345369092008-03-26T03:05:00.000+00:002008-03-26T03:07:40.481+00:00Single user loginSingle user login has finally been implemented (for admins only). This is where it is possible to have the same user name on every project even if you haven't registered. Eventually being able to have the same preferences such as email address will be implemented. Now with a username like "Majorly", and having registered previously across multiple projects, this wasn't a problem to me since I now own every single instance of "Majorly" across Wikimedia. I feel sorry for other users, particularly those who usurped first names on English Wikipedia (Alison, Daniel, Riana and Sarah come to mind here) since these are names in common use elsewhere, and there will be conflicts. I hope that all these usurpation requests don't drive the stewards crazy :-) Yes, only stewards can usurp accounts that have been linked, by unlinking them. Normal bureaucrats like myself end up with an error message saying the account is reserved. I think the next big thing development-wise will be implementing stable revisions. I personally feel they are a good idea in many ways, but a bad idea in many others. I might write a post on it if and when they are implemented.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-52027731811296759592008-03-20T14:25:00.000+00:002008-03-20T14:26:55.901+00:00ArbCom list leakPosted on my talk page:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Here's what they think about you</span><br /><br />"He's been prone to more than his share of drama, and acts (as he himself openly admits) as a bit of a drama magnet." - FT2<br /><br />"I have significant doubts about his judgment. I think a lot of the drama that focusses around him is a result of his habit of over-reacting to minor issues. I have significant doubts about his judgment for a tool as sensitive as CheckUser." - Sam Korn<br /><br />"Communication skills and temperament are important given that most checkuser and oversight work involves dealing with angry people. See also his current RFB where there have been quite a few negative opinions expressed." - Thebainer<br /><br />"Majorly has extremely poor communication skills. His involvement in a situation consistently makes its worse by adding drama. If I could change one vote that I ever made, it would be my vote for Majorly as 'crat on meta. I originally opposed him due to bringing off site personal issues into his Foundation decisions. (While the vote was open, I observed him changing a RFA vote on Commons after he had a personal spat with the user who was a friend of his.) But after discussing it with him I changed my vote because he promised to never do it again. I had never really known much about him before that incident but watched him closely afterward. Unfortunately the pattern has continued with him frequently getting into spats with other users including other 'crats. He has resigned different tools on different wikis several times in a huff. He also had issues related to using multiple accounts himself that cause some users to question his trustworthiness. I can think of ten or twenty of people that I would rather give the tools to then him. I see no upside to giving him the tools and loads of problems." - FloNight<br /><br />"He has poor judgment, and prolongs/inflames disputes more often than he resolves them." - Mindspillage<br /><br />"His responses to the opposes [in his RFB] have been even more telling." - Dmcdevit<br /><br />"He's suitable to be a checkuser. He can be very confrontational, which is not something we need in checkusers. He just won't be an effective checkuser. This is not the kind of person we want to say "This person such an outstanding Wikipedian that we feel we can give him checkuser". - Deskana<br /><br />It sounds genuine. Some of it I'm not at all surprised to read, but some of it is. Users I respected, who play nice and lovely to my face, appear to have sides I never knew. Some (former) arbs I'm surprised to not see are Newyorkbrad and Raul654, but no matter. I think the point has been made.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-58932696499997034542008-03-20T00:45:00.000+00:002008-03-20T01:03:35.857+00:00Blocked on English WikipediaSo last night, after nearly two years of editing I was indefinitely blocked for restoring a banned user's edits. Ho-hum. Basically, what happened is I saw <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alison">Alison</a> reverting a load of edits from one editor, and as far as I could see, they were perfectly acceptable edits. I've had issues with removing banned users edits in the past. A user, by the name of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Punk_Boi_8">Punk Boi 8</a> was community banned near the end of 2006, and he returned recently as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whiteandnerdy111">Whiteandnerdy111</a>. He was discovered, and subsequently, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel">Daniel</a> basically removed everything this user ever did. Whether it was productive or not. In some cases, the user adds a reference to an article, and it is reverted back to {{citation needed}}. This is unproductive. Punk Boi 8 was banned for exhausting the community's patience. If I recall, he was about 11 years old and didn't really get the idea of Wikipedia fully, and so the idea was to impose a temporary ban until he was mature enough to contribute. Whiteandnerdy had no apparent problems, and so Punk Boi had obviously improved somewhat. If he had improved, what is the purpose, and benefit in removing perfectly acceptable edits? This is a <span style="font-style: italic;">kid</span> I'm talking about here. He's not looking for trouble at all, just a bit clueless. I queried Daniel on his talk page, and asked him if the user had written a featured article, would he have deleted it as well? He said it was a possibility... remember folks, this is a <span style="font-style: italic;">12 year old</span> who is only temporarily banned until he grows up a bit. Through his sockpuppet, he has proven that he can work within our community norms, and had probably learnt his lesson.<br /><br />Now bearing this in mind, I saw Alison do a similar thing. She was reverting articles back to a really poor state (e.g. full of tags, poor prose etc) simply for the reason the user who improved them was banned. I have a gut feeling that even if this user had reverted vandalism, they'd revert back to the vandalism rather than let his edit stay. Anyway, I asked her on her talk page, and reverted a few of her reverts back to an improved version of the article. I was told not to, but with no clue as to why not. I never received any kind of indication about the problem, just a "trust me, you don't want to go there". Daniel told me to email arbcom. The only problem with that is arbcom tend to ignore what I have to say, so I expected the same again. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie">SirFozzie</a> reverted me, then I reverted him... then <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:East718">East718</a> popped up out of nowhere and blocked me (yes, this is the same East718 who thought it a great idea to bot edit the main page up to 5000 revisions, so obviously a history of great judgement). I received several emails about this - still nothing from Alison, as though I'm expected to know the history of all this. I have received an email from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG">JzG</a> who has informed me more clearly of the situation. If I had been informed, I'd have stopped so much sooner. But no one bothered to. I emailed Alison, but she has not replied. I indicated on my talk page I don't intend to continue editing. I'm not sure I want to continue. I have had nearly two years editing, and my block log is now scarred with something as bad as this. No one warned they'd block me (well Alison did, but was too late). I'd have stopped; I'm not stupid, and have better things to do if people want to make Wikipedia's articles worse.<br /><br />There's a thread about this over on <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16740">Wikipedia Review</a>; as I write this there's been over 1000 views. Believe me though, being in the middle of Wiki-drama is no fun at all. I don't want these things to happen - they just happen. I'm sorry for all the problems I caused with this.<br /><br />EDIT: Alison has very very sadly resigned from both checkuser and admin. While not directly responsible, I was the one who started this business, and it should be me not her.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3942189569807809109.post-26208613071660529842008-03-19T00:23:00.000+00:002008-03-18T17:26:29.567+00:00Species bureaucratsSomething funny I noticed whilst browsing around today <a href="http://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikispecies:Administrators&oldid=419652">here</a>. If you don't get it, there's 6 (5 if you don't count Maxim) RfBs up, <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">and they are all passing!!!</span></span> Not only this, they are proposing <span style="font-weight: bold;">*gasp*</span> that all admins should be bureaucrats! Wow, oh wow! This is the kind of thing that certain individuals would retire over on English Wikipedia should such a thing be implemented. I mean, gosh, RfAs and user renames might get done a bit faster! It sounds dreadful! I wrote a short essay <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly/RfA#On_.21votes.2Fvotes">here</a> that I think everyone should read. Basically, it sums up how it is easier to be a bureaucrat than an admin. I am a bureaucrat on Meta-wiki (amazing I know...) and trust me, it means basically nothing. I mean, it's Meta-wiki, hardly one of the major wikis (although we do host a lot of potential WP:BEANS pages). But if someone was to propose all admins became bureaucrats, I'd strongly support it. Bureaucratship is not a big deal at all, and those that think it is need to get their facts straight. If we trust someone as an admin, we can trust them as a bcrat, simple as that.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2