Meta as a government?, Still just a website. Options

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...1&oldid=3063243

Global bans may be overturned when a broad community consensus to do so can be demonstrated. If a local agreement develops on a project that a global ban was unwarranted, then this decision should be brought to the attention of other communities where the editor was active by public notification. Since a global ban is the product of a cross-wiki discussion, it is important that the communities previously invited to comment are made aware of a request to overturn a ban.

Abd, is this addition satisfactory?

[thekohser]

Apparently on Meta, the EYE-talian mafia doesn't want you to know all of the reasons why a global lock may be implemented.

[powercorrupts]

You know Abd, in the end they'll be obliged to find a way of globally banning you, however much you attempt to try and remove their ability to do it. In my opinion you will completely deserve it. There are people in life who are so excessively both congenitally and wantonly illogical, so stiflingly overbearing, and so utterly dysfunctional, that they eventually become nothing other than counter-productive. It's not like they would be banning you from your local shops, or there is nothing else you can do with your life.

It can hardly be a 'power grab' by them unless you have any powers yourself: but you don't represent anything other than the ridiculous idea that people signed up to Planet Wikiversity are 'innocent until proven guilty', despite what they have unremittingly done elsewhere in an environment that is tailor made for surreptitious opinion-mongers, insidious perverts and sleazy bullshitters. WikiMedia simply deals in immorality - liars, bullies, controllers and thieves.

It's just a shame for you that your cybersex with Poetfister will have to end when you become no more use to him. Just think of all the money you'll save on paddles and brillo.

[SB_Johnny]

You know Abd, in the end they'll be obliged to find a way of globally banning you, however much you attempt to try and remove their ability to do it. In my opinion you will completely deserve it.

There's this whole self-fulfilling-prophecy take on that that I'm not going to bother going into, because I can't be bothered to try to talk sense into Abd.

[Abd]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...1&oldid=3063243

Global bans may be overturned when a broad community consensus to do so can be demonstrated. If a local agreement develops on a project that a global ban was unwarranted, then this decision should be brought to the attention of other communities where the editor was active by public notification. Since a global ban is the product of a cross-wiki discussion, it is important that the communities previously invited to comment are made aware of a request to overturn a ban.

Abd, is this addition satisfactory?

Satisfactory for what?

Properly, a "global ban" is a decision to apply a global lock.

A subtle shift has occurred. In theory, if true and present consensus is to rule, for a ban to be maintained, there must be consensus *for it*. For efficiency, though, communities don't re-discuss everything, and "consensus communities" have a tendency to become rigid. The rigidity arises when a past consensus is considered to bind the present, requiring consensus (i.e., supermajority) to overturn it.

The real problem is the lack of a reliable decision-making process.

Practically speaking, discussions at meta will always, at least for a long time, be dominated by Wikipedians (from the various languages, but especially en.wiki).

This is the real problem, and the idea of overturning global bans assumes that it's necessary to do so, in order for a user to edit a local wiki. Global locks protect the small wikis from encountering users considered disruptive elsewhere. However, the wikis offer differing conditions. Wikipedia is a floating opportunity for dispute, with this rather vague concept of "neutrality" as if neutrality were an absolute, when, in fact, the only reasonably reliable way of assessing neutrality is through a measure of true consensus. Which is largely prevented at Wikipedia, "POV pushers" being readily banned. Get rid of the people with strong opinions, does the expertise, the ability to understand issues, in the remaining population increase or decrease?

Wikiversity, on the other hand, by the nature of the project, does not need to make decisions about neutrality as commonly, because forking is allowed. (Spooning, too, off in the corner there. Knifing seems to be de rigeur lately, but none of this has to do with content. Rather, fulfilling a major function of the wikis, and, yes, it's true: it's about Ottava and Poetlister.)

So it's entirely possible that a user may be unable to cooperate on many WMF wikis, but might be able to work collaboratively on one. Why should the one have to overturn a global ban in order to allow the user to edit there? The idea that this is necessary would be entirely new. Up to now, local wikis had autonomy. The edges of that were frayed with Thekohser's ban, but, in fact, the wikis ended up being quite clear. Nolo me tangere. Mind Your Own Business.

The global ban for Thekohser stands, it's still in effect. It's highly unlikely that it will be overturned. Yet, Thekohser *is* allowed to edit on certain wikis. Where is he disruptive? Not there!

Does anyone notice that bans create ongoing disruption?

[thekohser]

The global ban for Thekohser stands, it's still in effect. It's highly unlikely that it will be overturned. Yet, Thekohser *is* allowed to edit on certain wikis. Where is he disruptive? Not there!

Does anyone notice that bans create ongoing disruption?

This much is true these days... on the wikis where my global lock has been overturned, I've presented zero disruption. On the wikis where the global lock is enforced, I do seem to cause disruption, at least how they define it.

[SB_Johnny]

This much is true these days... on the wikis where my global lock has been overturned, I've presented zero disruption. On the wikis where the global lock is enforced, I do seem to cause disruption, at least how they define it.

Right, but you were "banned" because Jimbo said so, and he said so because he doesn't like you. I don't think it's necessarily a bad sign that teh communiteh decided to ban the poetlister.

[Abd]

Summary: SB Johnny is a far more serious danger to the independence of Wikiversity than anyone else.

This much is true these days... on the wikis where my global lock has been overturned, I've presented zero disruption. On the wikis where the global lock is enforced, I do seem to cause disruption, at least how they define it.

Right, but you were "banned" because Jimbo said so, and he said so because he doesn't like you. I don't think it's necessarily a bad sign that teh communiteh decided to ban the poetlister.

It's a distinction without a difference. "The community" is the community aware of and active on meta. This is not the Wikiversity community, nor is it the global community.

Meta is utterly unsafe, except for Ottava, who has a Special Immunity Badge. Same at Wikiversity. SBJ has protected him because he's a convenient attack dog.

Of course SBJ approves of the Poetlister ban. But Poetlister wasn't disruptive at Wikiversity. SBJ is, on Wikiversity, pretending to be unclear about the community consensus. That's because with Ottava and others around, it's possible to gather quick comment that rejects the long-established policy that non-disruptive users are not to be blocked without a community consensus, and those who are obviously not present on Wikiversity to build the place, but to either tear it down (which could even include SBJ) or to make sure that personal enemies are not allowed to function there, can present an appearance that SBJ and others then use to claim that my unblock of Poetlister wasn't "consensus." It wasn't consensus. It was an action within custodial discretion, and clearly so.

By standard practice, an unblock doesn't require consensus. SBJ even noted this himself when unblocking Thekohser. Basically, SBJ uses whatever arguments he can find to rationalize his actions. And the claque falls for it.

There was no emergency with my sysop bit, as claimed by SBJ. I'd made two button pushes considered inappropriate. Both were quickly reversed. The first, and only really important one, was the unblock of Poetlister. I did not unblock immediately, I waited almost five days, making sure that there was some agreement with the Wikiversity blocking policy. The relevant sections of that "proposed policy" have stood for years without challenge. That's [also] an expression of consensus.

Block log.

21:58, 6 November 2011 SB Johnny blocked Poetlister1 with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Globally blocked per community consensus on meta. We need consensus here to override that)

SBJ pretends that there was no community consensus on meta. What's so is that there was no RfC. There was an operating consensus. What SBJ is doing is ratifying meta consensus when he agrees with it, and not when he doesn't. The prior position was clear: Wikiversity manages its own wiki, including deciding who may edit. Meta may make a global default, by locking, but local wikis may decide about local accounts. Attempts to shut down Wikiversity because of "defiance" there went nowhere. The real danger to Wikiversity comes from within, as we will see. More accurately, it comes from a certain faction in the community, largely technocratic, mostly non-academic.

13:35, 15 November 2011 Abd unblocked Poetlister1 (In discussion, no justification per WV policy for block was shown. No danger exists from unblock. User has not been disruptive here.)

I mentioned discussion. Specifically, besides prior email discussion with my mentor, Jtneill (the other active bureaucrat on Wikiversity), and with Thenub314, there was
On Poetlister/Poetlister1
Request custodian action
User talk:Bilby
User talk:Poetlister1
User talk:SB Johnny
Colloquium discussion of Poetlister1 Because of controversy, I appended a notice that I'd unblocked to this discussion.
On blocking policy/bans
Permanent custodial discussion for Thenub314 (also mentions Poetlister) Thenub, in this candidacy statement, clearly said that he'd block to enforce a global ban, if the ban followed global ban policy. That policy doesn't yet exist. And who decides "global ban policy"? The WMF has the right, but it doesn't want to touch this. However, it might be convenient for some if meta becomes a global government. The practical effect, though, will be to make the rest of the WMF wikis helpless appendages to Wikipedia, for Wikipedia users can easily dominate at meta. A large non-English 'pedia may also do this; it's an issue of mobilizable user base.
Blocking policy has not changed significantly.
Community Review on global bans as of my unblock action.

Wiki decisions, in theory, are not made by voting. Rather, arguments are to be considered. Comments may be deprecated by a closer based on the nature of participants; a participant who shows up just to comment may not carry the same weight as one who is a regular contributor to the wiki. So, given established policy and practice (confirmed by SBJ in the past), given a discussion showing significant weight toward confirming the policy (most notably see the opinion of Jtneill in the Global Ban Community Review), I acted within custodial discretion, and because of the extensive discussion, and because of policy on unblocking, I was well within WV policies and practices.

15:14, 15 November 2011 Thenub314 blocked Poetlister1 with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Wheel warring, no discussion about this user took place.)

The one who wheel-warred was Thenub314. He did not discuss the unblock with me, nor with the community, before reversing it. He unblocked, rather, on a procedural argument that is widely understood as bankrupt. (I.e., improper custodian action. It's mostly done in the other direction, i.e., admin blocks, admin was involved, should not have blocked, therefore unblock. It's an error because the block reason, hazard to the wiki being asserted, should always be considered.) SBJ did this in the matter of Ottava Rima's block.

"No discussion"? Is he crazy? (No, he's obtuse and argues from conclusions.) If anything there was too much discussion, not "no discussion."

With unblocks, an unblock template is routinely reviewed by another custodian, who may decide, especially after discussion, but may also decide immediately if policy is clear. The policy suggests an uninvolved custodian if possible. That's why I first went to Request custodian action and RCA. However, policy was clear, no policy-based arguments had appeared in almost five days, hence I saw my responsibility as being to unblock.

And what this revealed was some serious corruption, specifically ownership of the wiki by SBJ, and his willingness to lie to keep control. There are some who considered the action foolish, but that assumes that I'd care about the consequences of confronting SBJ.

That I undid an action of his, no matter what the arguments, was, for him, an emergency, and so he went to meta. When a relatively straightforward request for emergency desysop did not work, he lied. And Thenub314 supported this.

There was no violation of my custodial agreement. There was a dispute over the agreement page, and I'd deleted it, for technical reasons (page in user space, sole author, not wanted in user space, revert warring on move back to Wikiversity space) -- and revised the agreement, but that was merely a proposal. I undid this rapidly. I never violated the agreement. There was no risk; had I violated the agreement, SBJ -- or anyone, really -- could have requested a steward desysop immediately.

The meta decision, given the BS they were eventually fed, was proper. Jtneill, very conservative, is not willing to re-sysop, preferring to present the matter for vote, which is a reasonable decision in itself, though it will probably result in "failure." I prefer not to call in the reserves on a matter where I'm involved. Guess what? I won't be involved next time. (If you want to understand this, read the Talk page for the voting page, together with the original voting. Analysis reveals much about what is going on.)

I've always said I didn't need the tools to do my work on Wikiversity. Indeed, they were a distraction and a restriction. I spent months handling spammers and vandals, welcoming users, and generally supporting the community, highly active and highly useful, recognized by SBJ in the first voting on my permanent custodianship. I'm now free from that obligation. Feels good, frankly.

The meta request. Notice that SBJ does not mention the "rash actions" at first. He doesn't want to call attention to his personal involvement. Notice that he leads with the BS issue of "altering the terms of his agreement." What I proposed would have made me like any other probationary custodian. However, when there was objection, I reviewed the original discussion and concluded that some, at least, had depended on the agreement for their support, so I undid those changes while I still had the tools. That was transient, and involved no emergency. Any custodian could simply have gone ahead and enforced the agreement, as it existed when made (the original agreement referred to a permanent version. In moving this to my user space, SBJ broke the links, that was part of my objection). SBJ took advantage of that opportunity, fully. It allowed him to actually ignore the agreement, while blaming me. But the substance, clearly, was the Poetlister unblock, and the principle, being asserted by Darklama -- with Ottava Rima -- of unblocking allegedly requiring consensus, which is a principle which removes the protections of policy and allows a transient majority to dominate.

SBJ is clearly on the side of the conditions that have largely paralyzed the wikis, not allowing them to adapt to changing circumstances. These ways of operating favor the continuation of power of people like SBJ. It's ironic that one of the claims made about me is that I supposedly was rigid and didn't respond to criticism, but, in fact, the record shows the reverse, and those making the claims of rigidity are the most rigid. Not a surprise, eh?

There is discussion of this, to some extent, in my current Permanent Custodian voting, currently in the site message on Wikiversity. I just love one of the arguments: candidate is not qualified because candidate has been rejected, three strikes and you're out. Besides being circular, this prejudges the outcome. This is the third probationary custodianship, which was made "permanent" by a compromise in the second voting. (There was no PC vote in the second period.) It is the third voting. SBJ now claims (in the meta discussion, misrepresenting the history) that the compromise was a mistake. Nice that he admits his errors, eh? Mistake because?

In that vote, SBJ would not have been able to legitimately close. Jtneill would have closed. Jtneill is conservative, for sure, but the pattern shown on the Talk page is unmistakeable. I don't know what he would have done. The compromise avoided that mess. A desysop in midstream misrepresents the situation to the community, some of which will assume that if this was done, must have been a good reason, which is a misunderstanding of how stewards work.

This post has been edited by Abd: Sun 20th November 2011, 6:49pm

[powercorrupts]

It's just occurred to me that nobody represents Wikimedia better than Abd. In a peverse way, he is the ultimate Wikimedia mascot - representing the very warped stupidity that the 'projects' ultimately bring about. Wikimedia is the death of intelligence, and Abd is the angel on the tree. He is 'POV' and Verify, and 'bold' incarnate - and absolutely encapsulates the worst elements of each. He is the reams of eye-crossing archived text. He is attrition itself. You cannot argue with him just as you cannot ultimately argue with the mindless chasm of WP. There is no actual ground with either, only the abyss. Human life is absolutely valueless to Wikimedia, and it so it will ultimately spurn everyone involved in it. The unremitting and imbecilic force of Abd, while he lasts, represents it like nothing else.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Mon 21st November 2011, 2:13am

[SB_Johnny]

The unremitting and imbecilic force of Abd, while he lasts, represents it like nothing else.

Wait, you don't think he's an eternal fixture?

[Abd]

It's just occurred to me that nobody represents Wikimedia better than Abd. In a peverse way, he is the ultimate Wikimedia mascot - representing the very warped stupidity that the 'projects' ultimately bring about. Wikimedia is the death of intelligence, and Abd is the angel on the tree. He is 'POV' and Verify, and 'bold' incarnate - and absolutely encapsulates the worst elements of each. He is the reams of eye-crossing archived text. He is attrition itself. You cannot argue with him just as you cannot ultimately argue with the mindless chasm of WP. There is no actual ground with either, only the abyss. Human life is absolutely valueless to Wikimedia, and it so it will ultimately spurn everyone involved in it. The unremitting and imbecilic force of Abd, while he lasts, represents it like nothing else.

It's not for nothing that my name is in the Qur'an.

It may be that Wikipedia brings out the absolute worst in me. In real life, I can speak to people and they listen and are moved. Wikipedia depends on text, which filters out maybe 99.9% of human communication.

"Eye-crossing archived text." I don't know if anyone has noticed, but Wikipedia typography, on talk pages, is not designed for readability. The medium encourages brief. Very brief. That rules out any deep exploration of a topic. In real life conversations, there is constant interchange between speaker and listener, even if only one is speaking. A "boring speaker" is one who is unaware of the listener, the equivalent of a "wall of text."