User talk:Sj/6

Identification

Sorry that you didn't identify with the Foundation in time to qualify for the steward elections. It was good to see you stand forward; there is a need for new involvement, even from people who have not historically done a lot of cross-wiki work. Considering your English and French connections, I hope you will consider doing other Meta-work as well, including small-wiki support and cross-language collaborations. Regards, –SJ · talk | translate 00:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Silly me. I didn't read the instructions carefully enough. I thought that similar to ArbCom, that I had to identify to Foundation before being appointed rather than before the election. I assumed I would be asked at the appropriate time. I thought of identifying, but then I thought that might be presumptuous of me, because the election hadn't started. Quite right that I should be disqualified - somebody who doesn't read instructions carefully shouldn't be a steward! SilkTork 10:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

...

Possible Double Standard?

Sj, I hope you realize that if some Stewards (including yourself) say that Locks are not for dealing with those like Abigor or Poetlister, then you have negated all usages of the locks for those like Thekohser or Moulton. The locking function was originally used by Jimbo to stop cross wiki people who have proven themselves as a great threat to multiple projects, and Moulton has used less projects than Abigor or Poetlister. I realize that many people dislike what Jimbo did in the past, but that is still a fundamental part of what Wikipedia/WMF was and its precedent cannot be imagined away. There has been no global consensus to go against what the WMF use to do, so I find it troubling on that ground. The Foundation has all rights to act without consensus. Stewards do not. Stewards cannot ignore the Foundation (who they are supposed to serve at their pleasure and are only there because of the Foundation) because they decided (yes, decided, which they aren't allowed to do) that the Foundation and Foundation members are suddenly invalid. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no real double standard here. Sometimes actions have been taken improperly, as to policy and guidelines, but the action stands because nobody is exercised enough to change it. The global actions against Moulton caused major problems at the time, and Ottava should know, he was involved in this whole sequence at Wikiversity. The matter became even clearer when Jimbo declared, in early 2010, that Thekohser was "globally banned," but did not actually implement this personally. It was eventually suggested that a steward globally lock, which was done, but then the decision, apparently, was to unlock, with Pathoschild going around to wikis to individually block accounts, which clearly, then, simply established a global status quo, allowing each wiki to make its own decisions about unblock, as some did. It was only later that Mike.lifeguard again locked Thekohser, claiming that it was the result of discussions, but, when asked, no specification of others involved was forthcoming, and it became obvious that Mike.lifeguard was very personally involved, by what happened on Wikibooks over a local unblock/unlock effort, and this all resulted, it appears, in Mike's resignation from Wikibooks privileges and possibly his further resignation as a steward, it's unclear. Jimbo lost some of his original full Founder toolset because of an RfC, here, started because of his actions on Wikiversity, originally, then compounded by Jimbo's interventions on Commons.

Ottava opposed unblocking Thekohser on Wikiversity, as he opposed allowing Poetlister to edit there, as he opposed any tolerance of editing by Moulton; but he did unblock Moulton as a parting shot (expiation? or revenge?) when he was about to be desysopped. Mouton as an editor there did not work out well. But Thekohser and Poetlister have been fine, so far. Had the global lock on the Poetlister account stood, there would then have been a need for discussion of unlock through renaming on Wikiversity, with some editors, like Ottava, being horrified at the prospect of him editing, believing that it is necessarily trouble in the long run, and others supporting him if he's behaving as he has. A mess, in other words, created by outside action by a steward. Some Poetlister accounts remain locked, because nobody, including Poetlister, is exercised to unlock them. Abigor is asking for all his accounts to be unlocked; he's technically correct, but ... what's the point?

The history of the usage of global locks is that they, if used when there is controversy, cause more disruption than they prevent. Jimbo originally implied Foundation support in his Wikiversity actions, but later made it clear that his action was personal, and the present situation with Poetlister may have had some support from some functionaries, but was not a Foundation action, I believe you know!

Sj, your proposal for a committee to decide on global locks is too narrow, since it appears that the need for global locks for "disruptive users" who aren't vandals is not common. Rather, some overall decision-making process may be in order that is more reliable and less obscure -- and more efficient -- than a pile of individual decisions by stewards, often based, contrary to policy, on off-wiki discussions. A global ArbComm could handle disputes where local wikis don't have the mechanisms.

I would hope, however, that the structural mistakes that have led ArbComm on Wikipedia to not function for true dispute resolution (which generates true consensus and which is therefore relatively easy to enforce) can be avoided. As your proposal proceeds, if I feel that there is an open field for it, I would lay out procedures whereby it could be easily accomplished that a global committee would be truly representative of the community, rather than merely of the most popular general positions and persons. That kind of process is necessary to preserve and promote the unity of the community, long-term. The kind of supermajority election used for admins and stewards and arbitrators is known, as an election method, to produce "dictatorship of the majority," as a majority faction will win [i]all of the seats[/i] (if people vote factionally, that they don't necessarily vote this way makes this work better in practice than would be true with pure factionalism, but the effect is still there.) --Abd 17:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Causing problems has no ability to override what existed or not. Slavery caused problems, but to claim that slavery never existed because we think that slavery is currently wrong is not acceptable. Whitewashing WMF history and claiming that the Lock was never intended to be used in this manner is similar whitewashing. If SJ, Millosh, or anyone else feels that Locks should not be used in the manner of locking cross wiki sock masters, then they would need to have a large community consensus to back them up (none exists or it would have been cited as reason to not have the block). The simple fact is 1. The WMF has every right to order a lock, 2. Stewards have no ability to disregard statements from the WMF (deciding on their own) or saying that a reason for a Lock is illegitimate pressure (deciding on their own), and 3. Locks have been used in this manner and Moulton is a case that proves that someone doing less than either Abigor or Poetlister has been locked for a very long time. Either Moulton gets to be unlocked or both Abigor and Poetlister are locked. Any other possibility has no logical basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The WMF has every right to order a lock. Indeed, it does. It has not done so, in any of the cases mentioned. Had it done so, an appeal, if any, would have been to the WMF, not to Steward requests/Global. Ottava, you are asserting, it seems, that the Poetlister lock was ordered by the Foundation. That's a serious charge, of weight and consequence. Do you have evidence for that? Who represented themselves as representing the Foundation? Sorry for troubling your Talk page with this, Sj, I'll happily shut up on request! --Abd 00:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Abd, if Sj didn't know what I was talking about he is quite capable of responding. I think you need to reread some of Millosh's comments to see what everyone else is discussing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ottava, I think all of those accounts (save Abigor) should be discussed for a cross-project ban; none of them engaged in high-speed driveby attacks on the projects, which is the primary application of locks. They should either be blocked on individual projects separately, given a global block for a period of time centrally, or given a ban if there is global consensus that they should be restricted from participating in all projects. Determining global consensus is a more appropriate way to say "you are blocked and local communities should not unblock", just as determining single-project consensus is a suitable way to say "you are blocked on this project, and no individual admin should decide to unblock".

Abigor, in contrast, was charged with an extreme and sudden set of policy violations, over the course of a few days, escalating on the day when his accounts were proposed for a lock. I can understand why it was considered there, though I think he deserved a bit of leeway for his excellent past contributions and trust on various projects. –SJ talk | translate  

As a small matter of clarification - the "I" above - Sj the Steward, Sj the Board Member, or Sj the editor? I agree with what you said as my only position is over a matter of fairness/equality. As a side note, why is it that Stewards are saying "this is how locks are" while ignoring what Jimbo used them for, as a Founder position, which used the tools before Stewards were using them regularly? Do you understand my feelings about possibly white washing history based on disagreements? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'I' is the editor-me. Debates about justifying the past can go in circles. I understand your worries about whitewashing history; we should not do it. However all of the cases so far have been borderline - clearly candidates for a global ban discussion if we had had a process for it at the time. If you are worried about a particular case, you can push for it to be reconsidered once we have such a process. –SJ talk | translate   09:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

If you ever have a moment, I would like to chat with you about a few things. You know many ways to get in contact with me. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read and see that Millosh is acting very inappropriately and abusing the Language Committee process. He allowed for no time for discussion and his closing rational shows 100% ignorance of the whole matter. We did not accept Montenegran as its own Wiki and it was more of a language that Scots is. Furthermore, the ISO codes are not put together by a linguist organization and even include Cockney, which is not its own language. There is a lot of scholarship that verifies that Scots is a dialect, and even 64% of Scots people refuse to accept it as a language. It is not legal, not official, and not recognized but only speculated as a language. For Millosh to close the discussion on its first day and allow for the nominator to be described as a troll and dismissed, a nominator with a really strong track record at the WMF, is inappropriate. As a Board Member, you and other Board Members have the authority to remove Millosh for abuse of process and showing their inability to actually deal with the matter appropriately, or to add additional people who will ensure that Millosh does not act in this way in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Millosh's response looks reasonable to me, and he responded to your harangue - something frowned upon on this wiki - with patience and an invitation to work with him on other projects. –SJ talk | translate   03:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)