Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2016-06

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Request to edit the current banner of wle_2016_in Wiki Loves Earth India 2016

I would like to request the admin to please edit the current banner of wle_2016_in Wiki Loves Earth India 2016

Campaign
wle_2016_in
Link
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Earth_2016_in_India
Date
From May 31, 2016 - June 30, 2016
Logged in
Yes
Projects
Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikidata, Wikiquotes, WikiBooks, Wikivoyage.
Languages
All
Geo-locate
India
text1

Yohannvt (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, could you please copy this all to the page of coordination of WLE CNs so that we can keep it all in one place? --Base (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Done
But I need your help here again

Please update this as the proper banner since the Check out the rules here link of the previous banner is not working

Yohannvt (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

fixed, sorry did not notice this update right away. --Base (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
winkThanks! Base ... Really appreciate your quick response Yohannvt (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 08:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Polish translation of "harassment" banner

Could an admin publish Polish translation of "harassment" CNBanner? --jdx Re: 06:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 08:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Global nuke?

Prof.John Fox is a globally-locked sockpuppet of long-term nuisance editor Alec Smithson. Is there any way to request or co-ordinate global removal of his edits, assuming of course that that is desirable? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the contributions left up seem to be good. I never really like reverting good edits, regardless of the person who made them myself, but I know others have different views on the issue. The best we can do in these cases is revert the edits everywhere, delete the pages on small wikis, and tag the pages on wikis with enough local admins to handle them. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for CentralNotice banner

Hi all! I would some help to create a CentralNotice banner for the https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encuentros/Editat%C3%B3n_en_el_Hotel_de_Inmigrantes planned by Wikimedia Argentina in Buenos Aires, next July 16th.

We want to try this campaigns:

--Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Doing...--Syum90 (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Listo. Saludos.--Syum90 (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 07:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to remove the founder flag

see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_and_proposals/remove_the_founder_flag - de Kolo nel - 23:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Meta sysops/bureaucrats. Thanks. — regards, Revi 07:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to OP in some ways... page deleted. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 07:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

IdeaLab and staff conduct

Declared inappropriate for this page, copied to Grants talk:IdeaLab/Inspire/Meta
The following discussion has been closed by Rogol Domedonfors. Please do not modify it.


Hello fellow admins and Meta-Wiki regulars,

I find myself slightly concerned with the WMF staff's behaviour in their current IdeaLab campaign. I will preface this by saying two things: First, I do not take issue with such campaigns being hosted here; cross-project coordination and discussion like that is ideal here, and I appreciate that they are using community infrastructure to do this. Second, while I object to a lack of preparative research being done prior to the campaign, I do not object to the topic of the campaign itself - harassment (and poor behaviour in general) is something which we do have a problem with and trying to fix it isn't a bad thing.

That said, I am concerned with the little fort that WMF staff has constructed in the Grants: namespace. They have set up a user behaviour policy without any community consultation, and one which duplicates our existing policy here. In the current campaign, they have separated those supporting and opposing proposals - supporters may use the front page, but opposers are relegated to the talk page where they are significantly less visible. The outward justification for this is that it allows the oppositions to be more effectively discussed, but I suspect it has more to do with providing a space for idea authors to work without a flood of opposition. Again, this is not necessarily bad, even if it clearly violates our founding principles. But I am concerned that all this behaviour as a whole is undermining community control of Meta, and I want to engage with WMF staff here to figure out how they can better operate as an equal part here, rather than the sort of overlord behaviour they are currently displaying. I would remind the Foundation that they were created to support us, not the other way around.

So to the WMF staff: Can you please stop setting up your own little fort there, and instead engage with the broader community? Many people have expressed concern with moving the oppositions to the talk page. Why not move the supports there as well, to ensure balance? Why not have some actual conversations about this with the community on the appropriate talk pages, rather than just telling them how they are expected to participate in your area? And why is a "friendly spaces" policy necessary when our own community policy clearly covers it? And with Meta admins and regulars, am I making sense here? This probably would have been best on Babel, but I opened it up here because I was honestly considering reverting the mass moving of comments by WMF staff myself, so it's kinda an administration issue. Feel free to disagree on this point :-)

@I JethroBT (WMF) and PEarley (WMF): and whatever other WMF staff are working on this. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

A similar situation with OTRS from a few years ago: Talk:OTRS/Volunteering/Archive_1#.22Comments.22_on_prospective_OTRS_helpers IMHO, if they wish to do this, they should move the discussion to another wiki that they control. --Rschen7754 01:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
If they are truly unwilling to engage in discussion with the community, then another project would be the best place to take this indeed. But I think Meta is a good place to host this; I just don't understand why they are behaving the way that they are, and I hope we can move past this. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ajraddatz. I’d like to start by saying thanks for opening this discussion-- I appreciate being able to discuss this in a centralized location. PEarley (WMF) will be responding here a little later about your concerns over the behavioral expectations in IdeaLab.
Let me start by explaining why things are the way they are, acknowledging there are costs and benefits to this system (as there are with any system). IdeaLab is primarily a drafting and collaborative space for idea creators. For volunteers, taking the initiative to draft an idea and continue building it takes considerable effort. Such effort is worth supporting, and making it easy to endorse and see endorsements is a good way to do that. Furthermore, when an idea is still being thought out and crafted, idea creators and others should have an opportunity to respond to feedback. It makes most sense to do this on the discussion page of an idea, and as a result of that discussion, the substance of that idea has the potential to change. IdeaLab is also connected to the grant programs that the WMF offers, and funding decisions are not based on simple tallies of support/oppose-driven discussions. Furthermore, talk page discussions are always considered at whenever a grant proposal is submitted.
I'd like to hear from others about their thoughts on this approach to feedback. It places feedback in separate places, and while there is value in having all feedback centralized in one place, separating it out has benefits as well. I think your idea of moving all feedback to the talk page -- endorsements, concerns, comments, suggestions, etc. -- is also worth considering. I’ve started some conversations with my department about the prospect of this change you've proposed. It's important to keep in mind that these changes would require considerable changes to templates used for IdeaLab and WMF grant proposals, maintenance and updating operations of User:GrantsBot, and manual updating of existing ideas, and could not be implemented right away. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The ability to see both potential pros and cons on one page makes more sense than the current system. Care needs to be taken to avoid creating a politically charged environment with an unintended Emperor's New Clothes effect by actively supporting contributors who would like to test a proposal from different viewpoints. A few "critical friends" can be a lot more helpful than a pile of +1s. --Fæ (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I can see both sides of this discussion. On the one hand, I understand the reasons for keeping each main idea page for explanation and endorsement only, and leaving all discussion (pro or con) to the talk page. On the other hand, many here seem to think that if only endorsements are seen on the main page, it implies that there is no opposition. I don't really agree with the argument that supporters will not visit the talk page to see the opposition, because the main and talk pages are automatically added to the watchlist when a person endorses an idea. But I realize not everyone checks their watchlists.
I think that now that we're a third of the way through this campaign, it is probably too late to change the template. Instead, some clear explanation should be given on the main page as to why things are set up the way they are, with instructions that proposers are welcome to explicitly add an Opposition section to their main page if they choose.
Honestly, I think there is some confusion in how these "Ideas" are supposed to work. Unlike on Wikipedia where "no one owns a page," each idea here has a specific person listed as proposer, with an optional bio and everything. But then anyone can edit the page anyway (one editor even merged another idea with mine, without checking with either proposer first). So even if the idea proposer would prefer to keep discussion on the talk page, there's currently no way to enforce that. Funcrunch (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Two points of contention:
"Such effort is worth supporting, and making it easy to endorse and see endorsements is a good way to do that". It is worth supporting not simply for it's own sake, but rather because the idea has some merit. If it is clearly a bad idea from the start, I think it's much nicer for the proposer to receive a swift reality check through opposition than to let him waste his time on an idea that is doom to fail.
"and funding decisions are not based on simple tallies of support/oppose-driven discussions. Furthermore, talk page discussions are always considered at whenever a grant proposal is submitted." While that may be true, it doesn't take into account that there is a real probability of missing out on good counterarguments and popular opposition when the place to voice that opposition is obscured the way it is when it is on the Discussion page (with no indication on the main page that opposition should be voiced there). --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that moving “oppose” comments to the discussion page is a clear case of separate but equal, which of course is not equal. Different viewpoints should be able to be compared and discussed. Every person should have an equal chance to state their views. A person's comment should not be removed because of its position. A discussion should not be “agree with me or leave”. Each person invited to the discussion should have an equal voice. There are plenty of places where opposition is suppressed, should this be one of them? Sammy D III (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I JethroBT (WMF) is systemically suppressing opposition comments from discussions, effectively censoring them, with no discussion. Sammy D III (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sammy D III: It's neither suppression nor effective censorship. It's moving discussions and things likely to be discussed (i.e. concerns) to the talk page. It's exactly what talk pages are intended to do. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): Thanks for escalating my concern about the voicing of opposition! Let me first reply to some things you wrote on this page and then propose a solution. The current way of handling opposition (i.e. moving it to the Discussion page) is not censorship in the strict sense, that's true, but I do think that it is a form of suppression in the sense of intentionally reducing the impact of what is written by means of limiting the audience's exposure to it. But let's not get too caught up on terminology.
More importantly, I think you're mischaracterizing opposition in two ways: 1. you're equating it with concerns; 2. you're assuming that it will provoke discussion more than endorsements. Regarding the former: Opposition is much more clear-cut than concerns. I've seen lots of endorsements that include some concerns as well. The discussion page seems like a suitable place for concerns to me (though I'm fine with a Concerns section on the Grant page too). Oppositions however are nothing other than "negative endorsements", that is to say they serve the same purpose: letting others know whether or not you support the idea. They are not intended as discussion starters. This is clearly how people have used the Opposition sections. For example, take a look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Real_Names. The statements there are of the same format as the endorsements: I oppose it for such and such reasons, period. The arguments people provide in their endorsements or oppositions may spark a discussion, but they're not intended to, which brings me to the latter point: both endorsements and oppositions provide food for discussion and oppositions. For example, again looking at the Real Names idea (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Real_Names), you can see that two of the endorsements have been answered with concerns or opposition.
Now as to my concerns with the current state of handling opposition and concern, for brevity's sake I've summarized them into a number of points:
  1. Having only endorsements visible on the main page creates a skewed impression of the reception of the idea. This is wasteful and inefficient because it a) might make some people jump in (become a volunteer, write an endorsement) only later to read counterarguments that make them change their mind; b) gives the proposer a false impression of good reception; c) might make ideas that are clearly not realistic run for much longer than is necessary.
  2. Having only an endorsement section confuses people and makes for a chaotic main page. I have already seen quite a few statements listed in the Endorsement section that are actually oppositions or concerns. For example the second statement on this Grant: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Women_have_to_make_up_at_least_40%25_of_admin_in_the_arbcom_and_every_other_elected_position
  3. Makes it harder to quickly compare endorsements (i.e. arguments in favor) and opposition (counterarguments) to make up your mind on whether the Grant is worth supporting or not.
  4. Isn't fair to those opposed, since they're essentially told to voice their concerns in on a separate page which only 10% or so of the audience of the main page care to visit.
My suggestion is this: Create a section named Votes with the subsections Endorsements and Opposition (and possibly Concerns). At the top of this section, place a notice (preferably in an information box) that informs users that this section is meant only for expressions of endorsement or opposition and that discussions should be held on the Discussions page. In addition to the Endorse button, provide an Oppose button. They serve the same purpose: to let users voice and explain their verdict on the idea. Similar to endorsements, opposition submitted using this button would be added to the Opposition subsection.
Hoping to hear your take on this and with best regards,
--Doveofsymplegades (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
One issue I have here is that ideas in IdeaLab are not RfCs that appear on some Wikimedia projects. It's not a vote, and the endorsements are there to give some indication of general interest in the idea. The nature of most opposition comments is outright rejection of the idea rather than what could be changed to improve the idea. As an idea creator, that's discouraging. (Though of course, it's true some ideas are completely unworkable or not fully considered. That's happened in every campaign.) Even if you change your idea in a manner that might change someone's mind who opposed, there's no guarantee or any expectation that the person who opposed would come back to review your changes at all, and so the oppose would sit there, even if their concern is no longer relevant. That's also going to bias readers. This brings me back to the main point: Idealab is a drafting space, and the ideas are usually incomplete until they are submitted for a grant or turned in a formal RfC or proposal on a local project. It makes me wonder if there should be a "draft" indication so that the idea creator can work on the idea and gather feedback whenever they complete it. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I was invited to a discussion, made a good-faith comment, and had my comment deleted. Double-talk about “moving” doesn't change that my comment was removed from where it was posted. Deleted. I was excluded from that discussion because of my position. I was prevented from exchanging ideas, learning things, and making an informed decision. I didn't even know where my comment went.
  1. If the front page is only for the first impressions of people who have not yet discussed the issue, and only those who support the idea, shouldn't that be made clear?
  2. Who says “It's exactly what talk pages are intended to do.” other than your group? That is not how the RfAs are done. Aren't they pretty serious discussions?
  3. Does “keep in mind that these changes would require considerable changes” mean that a questionable policy should stay in place because it is to much trouble to change?
  4. “The nature of most opposition comments is outright rejection of the idea” assumes that anyone who does not support the idea is close-minded. I came here for a discussion, not a political rally.
  5. “there's no guarantee or any expectation that the person who opposed would come back to review your changes at all”? You need a guarantee? The possibility that only some of the oppose come back is a problem?
  6. “the oppose would sit there, even if their concern is no longer relevant”. So what? Endorsers have the same problem. Not all Endorsers come back and update their posts, either.
I believe that all positions should be shown, not only those that are chosen by an Admin.
--Sammy D III (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears Sammy D III just beat me to it on some of the points I have concerning this post (I ran into an editing conflict when I tried to submit this response), so sorry about the duplicates:
  • I agree that it shouldn't be (just) a tally. "Votes" is not the right name for this section. I couldn't come up with a good umbrella term for Endorsement+Opposition(+Concern) last night, but I now suggest "Feedback".
  • The general interest in an idea can also be negative. Only showing endorsements does not accurate reflect this.
  • The nature of opposition is indeed rejection in most cases. If it wasn't, they would be concerns instead. That's why I suggest splitting up Opposition and Concern.
  • Opposition doesn't have to be discouraging, but it can be. If it is, that isn't wrong in itself, because the goal of the campaign is not to encourage people to work on ideas per se, but to work on good idea. Swift opposition prevents "Well, why didn't you tell me right away?!" kinds of scenarios.
  • Your objection to oppositions on the main page because it might linger there after it has been resolved applies just as much to endorsements: the proposer can change his idea in a way that would make someone drop his endorsement.
  • "IdeaLab is a drafting space [...]". I acknowledge that, but looking at the results, I'm not sure if that's a good idea. A lot of Grants are literally nothing more than one or two sentences, often about some general concept, without any explanation of how it is going to be applied. Many others are simply not thought out well enough. I've read most of them and have only seen a handful that I would consider sufficiently fleshed out to be put up for the general public to consider and discuss. Personally, I think it would be a good idea to encourage or force people to present a properly fleshed out idea. This prevents a lot of confusion, cuts down on the number of ideas to consider (we have 181 now!), increases the signal to noise ratio and prevents the kind of scenarios in the bullet point above this one. If we really want to discuss this we should make a separate topic on the IdeaLab discussion page though.
  • Kind regards, Doveofsymplegades (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It really would help to explain what the concept of "endorsement" is being used for in these pages. For example, at Grants:IdeaLab/Propose Wikimedia Code of Conduct (adapted from open source Contributor Covenant) some of the endorsements ask quite important questions (eg "is this Code of Conduct for all Wikis [...] or should each create a separate one?") and some are actually not endorsements at all (eg "I would suggest rather than the using the proposed text to use the text of NOTHERE"). So it's not at all clear why these are not part of the discussion on the Talk page. If the endorsements are to be restricted to simple statements of support, and nothing else, but are not votes, then what purpose do they serve? If the count of endorsements is to be used for some purpose, then what meaning can that count have, and how can that purpose be served, if negatives are excluded? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The entire notion of these cordoned off namespaces was going to lead to problems like these, the other problem being neglect. I recall a few of us objecting to so many namespaces, staff were in a hurry to create 1-2 year ago. The research, grant namespace come to mind. Programs is another that seems almost dead. I don't know what perceived benefit they brought. It's time to consider merging them back with main. Theo10011 (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm offering insight here into how comments on the talk pages and endorsements on the proposal page, respectively, get used in the review process for Individual Engagement Grants (IEG), since some IdeaLab proposals are ultimately converted into IEG proposals.
First, community feedback that appears on the talk page is much more influential to funding decisions than what appears in the endorsement section. The talk page is not an afterthought but an integral part of the proposal, offering a critical lens for understanding whether a project is fundable. The talk page input feeds into every stage of proposal review and selection, informing committee scoring, driving interview questions, directing expert consultations in due diligence and shaping discussion in the final committee deliberations. In fact, if the discussion page includes substantive comments, it will frequently consume more review time than the proposal page itself.
By contrast, the endorsements section warrants only brief attention, providing a quick, at-a-glance review of who has signed off on a proposal as "ready to go." Nevertheless, it serves a useful strategic function during the due diligence review. During that period, I develop a list of people who can make an informed assessment of risk and readiness for a given proposal. In cases where the risk is high or complex, I ask the applicant to reach out to those individuals and ask that they review the proposal, offer comments on the talk page and, if they believe the proposal is ready for funding, endorse it. During the quick turnaround time of the due diligence period, endorsement offers a quick, clear indicator that someone has ultimately signed off on a project, which might be otherwise hard to discern on the talkpage.
A negative endorsement, by contrast, wouldn't offer any further clarity except via accompanying feedback, which belongs on the talkpage. The feedback is crucial to either resolving outstanding issues with a proposal or determining that it is not fundable. It also provides a valuable implicit test for the applicant: whether and how an applicant responds to constructive feedback is a major indicator of readiness for funding. Since the endorsement section isn't the right place for discussion to happen, any kind of negative feedback is more valuable on the talk page because it invites the applicant's response.
We aim to make the grant application process as much about mentorship as possible. Some proposals will never be funded, but we still try to support the applicant's development by offering resources like encouragement, rigorous constructive feedback and opportunities for collaboration. Thoughtful, negative feedback on the talkpage serves this goal, but I don't believe that a negative endorsement section would because it leaves the applicant (and the decisionmaking committee) without any clarity about what is lacking in the proposal. It would make the endorsements section appear to be a popularity contest, which it isn’t intended to be.
I'm wondering if it would address the concerns raised in this thread to try to make the purpose of endorsements clearer, by more explicitly inviting feedback on the talkpage from those who aren't ready to endorse, and by making it clear that constructive feedback offered on the talk page is carefully reviewed and plays a crucial role in the grantmaking process?
Cheers, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Ajraddatz about my comment here. --Marti (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This is valuable input, thanks Mjohson. I have a couple of points in response:
  • As it is currently set up, the endorsement (button) does not give off the impression of making a "this passes the quality check" statement, but rather a statement of wanting to see the idea succeed. The prompt for arguments for why you support the idea reaffirms this.
  • More importantly, I really don't see how a statement of opposition is less informative than an endorsement. Doesn't a statement of opposition give you "a quick, clear indicator that someone has ultimately rejected a project"? And wouldn't that also be "otherwise hard to discern on the talk page"? Only using endorsements as your quick gauge general reception seems very biased to me.
  • Even if it would be preferable to have the statements of opposition on the talk page, you would still have a setup that is much more conducive to endorsement than to opposition. If anything, I'd say that making the expression of opposition as easy as possible is much more beneficial than "+1s": if a proposal can survive a proper grilling, it is probably solid enough to receive grant money. As it stands now, there is nothing in the template that indicates where one should file statements of opposition, which leaves it up to those already familiar with talk pages and etiquette to file them. Thus we lose out on potentially poignant criticism.
  • In a similar vein as the point above, you can already observe the confusion the Endorsement button causes for people that want to leave concerns or criticisms. There are plenty of "endorsements" that explicitly state they aren't, but that they rather are expressing concerns/opposition.
Cheers, --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mjohnson (WMF: I understand the purpose of separating them, and honestly I even agree with it. What I am concerned with is the lack of responsiveness to the community. Moving forward, I wonder if you could make it clear that the endorse/oppose sections are separately to not discourage idea creators (along with reinforcing that ideas are not concrete proposals nor binding referendums), and also permit some sort of discussion (maybe on the /meta talk page?) regarding this practice to gain wider input. If a significant portion of the community opposes it, then that is something staff should take into account. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Doveofsymplegades:, @Ajraddatz:, thanks to both of you for comments.
Doveofsymplegades, I didn't mean to imply that endorsement is more value than opposition. That's definitely not the case! Informed, constructive opposition is incredibly helpful and I consider it to be one of the most valuable resources that our open grantmaking process offer applicants. I only meant to say that a positive endorsement can stand alone and still be useful, while a negative endorsement is much less useful if it isn't accompanied by additional feedback. A positive endorsement, by itself, is a way for community members to say, "No further action needed for this idea to be acceptable for funding." A negative endorsement, by itself, is a way of saying, "Further action is needed before this idea would be acceptable for funding." In my mind, this isn't useful unless the "further action" is spelled out. In my experience, applicants have almost always been very willing to make significant revisions to their proposals when offered worthwhile, constructive feedback. A problematic proposal can often become much more workable and robust in response to good criticism. Conversely, without substantive comments, a diligent applicant could conceivably make revisions to their proposal that would actually make it worse if, for example, the negative feedback on the talkpage is misguided and unrepresentative of the dissenting voices, but is all the applicant has to go on to interpret negative endorsements.
That said, I hear the concern that both of you are raising about the lack of clarity about where and how opposition should be expressed and whether it will be taken as seriously as the endorsements. I can see how the current design might imply we favor positive endorsements over negative feedback, and it's very understandable why it would raise a red flag about fairness in the process. And I agree that listening to the community's concerns about this is important. As we transition into the Project Grants program (which will shortly replace IEG), we'll consider the concerns raised here and try to find a good way to address them. Ajraddatz, I appreciate your concrete suggestions about possible ways to do this.
On the topic of WMF staff listening to community feedback, somewhat tangentially, I want to add that the WMF staff most closely involved with the process/program addressed in this thread--including myself--are gearing up to leave to participate in Wikimania next week, so we're all a bit under water with work and will be until we return in late June/early July. I mention this now because I see that this discussion is garnering quite a bit of energy and thinking at the moment and so I want to pre-emptively say that if we drop out of sight temporarily, it's not because we're ignoring it. It's because we're about to be in a very intense sprint that might make it hard to engage here. I'll make a point of catching up when I return (I've added a reminder to myself on my calendar to do this when I return).
Thanks again for the feedback. Cheers, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For administrative attention: I'd like to call attention to behavior from Doveofsymplegades who has pre-emptively created opposition sections on at least 10 different ideas before and during this discussion:
There are many more than this, going through their contributions. I've asked them to move these to the talk page, but they have refused. If we're going to talk about process, it is presumptive, hostile, and disruptive to impose a design change before we've had a chance to figure it out. Their actions do not create an atmosphere where we can work together on this matter. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I JethroBT (WMF), As a local admin, I went through that list of links. I am not sure what you are objecting to here - could you be more specific about your complaint?
Since you asked, I went through each link one by one and really found no behaviour in violation of ToU, any policy or even good conduct. You are objecting to his nature of objecting or his ability to object? Would you like him to be silenced and gone? He is doing quasi-janitorial work in half those links. Yes, there is opposition, but that is the basis of debate, and consensus. We have disagreements about everything, it is how we discuss and come to consensus that formed the back-bone of Wikipedia itself. You can't silence him just for disagreeing or questioning something? Is that what you are asking?
  • First link is the idea lab talk page itself. The user is stating some opposition is moved to discussion, some isn't and then the user ask for judgement on policy. it seems like the appropriate place to mention his concern and the tone is civil. He is doing what Aj did here.
  • Second link, on a grant "VALUE THE TRUTH" in caps. He mentions the idea is too vague, what this has to do with harassment and how will a "strong team" identify false content. The grant itself is about 4 lines, from users with zero history. The opposition part is the most coherent section of the page.
  • Third link, A one line grant proposal in german. The user above only mentions that it's a duplicate.
  • Fourth link, A minimal grant page titled "Women have to make up at least 40% of admin in the arbcom and every other elected position". The user questions if merely having a male majority makes wikipidea biased and unsafe for women. He cites WMF's non-discrimination policy and questions the veracity of a quota system. This seems like a knowledgeable review and an conflicting opinion.
  • Fifth link, Another small grant page titled "Non violent communication". The user states the idea is too vague. Asks questions about how his goals can be accomplished.
  • Sixth link, Same as Fifth link - I assume you copy pasted.
  • Seventh link, idea of global guidelines and dispute process (this idea is actually quite old and has had a lot of discussion on Meta over the years). The user questions why "one size fits all" approach and expands on the uniqueness of every project instead of a top-down view. This is an acceptable position to take that many here might agree with.
  • Eight link, links to Sandbox. Error?
  • Ninth link, An idea about creating a "new theme for wikipedia abd update all the information". The user rightly states this has nothing to do with harassment.
  • Tenth link, A blank grant titled "There must be set of espeacial terms and condition against harassment in offices,school government and non government." There is no information on the grant page itself. The user rightly states, This is too vague and has nothing to do with Wikipedia.
Lastly, I don't know your exposure with the community here, but half his comments I can imagine coming from anyone else on Meta. There is nothing wrong with anything he asked in those links. By those standards, a lot of us, most of us, would be in violation of your policy. Even your message on his talk page, he calmly replied that "he read the discussion and since there are others expressing concern over the same thing. If you won't mind, he'd rather wait for it to be resolved before moving." Again, This user seems knowledgeable and civil. There is no offending action here besides disagreement. Should that be an actionable offence? Theo10011 (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Theo10011 The content of the ideas is not the issue, and I don't have any problem with people being opposed to ideas at all. It's the fact that IdeaLab is not currently designed in this manner, and it's disruptive to implement changes to that design before we've agreed on what to do. Different proposals on how to arrange feedback have been pitched. But apparently for some, it is a foregone conclusion. It makes it difficult to have an actual conversation where I feel like anybody's perspective is being taken seriously, and individuals just arrange things how they like in the space. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I JethroBT (WMF) Well, this is how wikis are designed. WMF or the grant department or any staff didn't invent or design the underlying platform here - It's based on wiki. And this user seems to be experienced. The grant namespace mangled certain underlying feature of a wiki to accommodate some things. The software, the policies, the community support openness and discussion - which is what you guys don't want. Maybe you should consider moving to another platform - google docs or survey/campaign. What you want is inherently against the nature of your own platform. Theo10011 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree; the behavior is pretty much at odds with the whole idea of not disrupting projects to make a point. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Theo10011: For the record, I'm not an experienced Wikipedian. I try to act in good faith, but I wasn't aware of some policies and mechanisms of handling issues and controversies such as these, so I understand that my actions may seem inappropriate or odd to more experienced users. I agree with Jethro's main point ("don't just do it your way until it has been resolved"), though I think only the few edits I made yesterday are clearly in violation of this rule for the reasons stated in my comment to Jethro's accusations. --Doveofsymplegades (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The first line there reads - "Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented." - This is the opposite of what you want? No discussion, no comments until you sort out your own systems? I don't think you'll find a policy anywhere on wiki where it says to not talk or discuss at all. Anyway, That is an essay imported from en.wp in 2006. The en.wp current version is quite different and suggests in a nutshell "When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only.". Neither one supports your argument currently. Theo10011 (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I was unclear with what I disagreed with. Of course, I agree that discussion here is sensible. Preemptive changes during this ongoing discussion is not. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): "If we're going to talk about process, it is presumptive, hostile, and disruptive to impose a design change before we've had a chance to figure it out." I agree. Sorry about that. Some points in response, not for the sake of exculpating me, but to explain why I did what I did:
  • The majority of these edits were made before I had even brought up the issue of where statements of opposition should go and hence before I was aware or could have been aware of any rule regarding where to voice opposition. I noticed some other editors had created similar Opposition sections so for the sake of providing some structure to the feedback, I put the existing statements of opposition in an Opposition section. On other articles, I created such a section myself so I could leave statements of opposition.
  • I stopped adding Opposition sections after I noticed that you or others had moved some of them to the discussion pages of the grants and I had brought up the issue on the discussion page of the IdeaLab itself.
  • Regarding asking me to revert the changes: I may have been wrong, but it didn't seem to me to be an authoritative command, but rather a "I think this would be better" kind of suggestion which was up for discussion. Hence I responded the way I did, expecting a definite decision from you in return. My intent was not flat-out refusal to comply and if you still want me to comply, I will.
  • Yesterday, I added some Opposition sections to proposals that are, in my opinion, unambiguously nonsense or otherwise unworkable. I agree that that's disruptive and that I shouldn't have done that before this issue is resolved. My apologies.
Kind regards, Doveofsymplegades (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Doveofsymplegades: I would like you to comply, thanks. With that said, I appreciate your feedback pointing out ideas that are clearly not workable. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is sort of a sad deal when a problem goes on for months, with many voicing concerns. “Bias”, “censorship”, and “suppression” are brought up regularly. Then WMF members seem to stonewall and blow smoke-screens. Their main defense seems to be “because that's how we do it. Period”. This board is not about women being harassed, it is about good-faith editors being harassed. Nobody has shown that any of the deleted comments have any potential to harass any female. Now WMF members, instead of really addressing the issues, choose to attack the character of a good-faith editor. All positions should be heard. This seems like such a basic Wikipedia principal that I have problems understanding how anyone can oppose it. Sammy D III (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

On the Friendly spaces expectations

Ajraddatz mentions this, so I thought I'd add some background on that here. The Friendly spaces expectations (FSE) were drafted in response to community and staff concerns that personal attacks and profoundly toxic discussions were demotivating grant proposers, and derailing important discussions around funding. It was brought to the wider Meta community’s attention several times, the latest being in July of 2015. That post goes into some of the motivations and research that led to this approach. Unfortunately, in my working on Meta, I have never seen Meta:Urbanity explicitly enforced, or even invoked in warning. I believe it has only been in place since January 2015, and I wonder how many Meta users are even aware of it? It does not appear to be linked from the index of Meta policies. If it were a functional, enforced policy, there would be little need for the FSE. The grants team were very aware that they could not require Meta admins to patrol Grants spaces, and began to craft a more specific and actionable behavioral guideline specifically for that space. I agree it isn’t ideal to have overlapping policies or expectations, however, there does need to be some sort of working guideline. Where do we go from here? The FSE was simply an effort to improve collegiality among participants in an environment that, at the time, lacked a working system to encourage it. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)edit: bad link fixed. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @PEarley (WMF): thanks for getting back. I didn't realize that there was community consultation, so I'm sorry for misrepresenting that - obviously I just didn't participate or remember about it. I think the issue with our existing policies isn't the policies themselves, but the lack of active admins we have always watching Meta. That is a structural issue; Meta is (almost) nobody's home project.
I would still prefer that the overarching policy be used, rather than setting up per-namespace policies. Is Meta:Urbanity missing anything that you think should be included? If not, then I think the two could be merged rather easily. You could still enforce civility and niceness in the Grants: namespace with URB of course. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Ajraddatz, there's probably room for improvement in both policies, and I agree getting them together is the ideal end point. I guess one of the first criticisms I have of Urbanity is that it sets respect as not only the ideal (with I agree with), but the standard to judge behaviour. Respect can mean many things to many people, and the policy may lack the specificity to be practically actionable. If we go any deeper on this topic, we should probably move over to the Urbanity talk page.
Lack of admins is certainly another pain point. From the discussions I've had with Meta admins, at least several took on the role primarily because of their technical expertise - they didn't sign up to deal with behavioural issues, and don't feel comfortable working on them. And, as you say, Meta is rarely someone's home wiki, so there's an attention problem as well. So, perhaps an admin recruiting drive might help? Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Meta admins are basically expected that meta isn't their home wikis - Meta:A says candidates have to "demonstrate cross-wiki experience (e.g., be a participant of at least two months' duration on at least one project other than Meta and the "home" project).". Not sure if admin drive will help the problem if their home wiki still isn't meta :P — regards, Revi 15:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@PEarley (WMF):, You are referencing something less than an year old, proposed by you, for lack of policy enforcement as viewed by you. Now, it is some inherent policy of grants namespace that has to be abided by? The forum link you provided has all but two comments offering differing views, after a week you announce in an update that you've formed certain expectations and that seems to be the end of it. This is blatantly one-sided.
You offer a link where our policy isn't explicitly enforced, but that's either broken or doesn't exist and leads back to the first link where you proposed this. I'd like to see the admin failing that prompted this policy. This seems to be an attempt to create a fishbowl where only one type of comment is acceptable - maybe this isn't suited for Meta and would be more home at wmf wiki? You'd have all the control there.
Obviously, your attempt here isn't working. Users, even admins are complaining about censorship - this isn't remotely a good trade-off for an open culture project. Censoring and removing comments from other users is something that just isn't done on-wiki unless there is some privacy violation or blockable offense. I don't know about your past experience, but this entire policy is inherently ill-suited to an open-source project - open-source means free and equal access for every voice- even those you don't like, or find offensive. Perhaps you can look at other ways of enforcing this policy without attempting to censor. Theo10011 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Theo10011, I think you may be misunderstanding something here: Patrick liaised with Community Resources in spreading the word about their expectations. He neither created those nor proposed them. Unless you are using the plural "you" there, of course, which is not clear to me in context. :) That said, the CR policy is based on the m:Terms of Use which apply to all spaces and every project. We do not tolerate harassment or threats. Placing these on our projects is against the ToU and thus by nature illegitimate contribution that can and should be removed by anyone. The Friendly Spaces Expectations explicitly calls out the following for potential removal or hiding (hatting):
  • offensive comments related to gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, race, ethnicity, political affiliation, or religion
  • violence, threats of violence, deliberate intimidation and personal attacks
  • stalking, following, or continued one-on-one communications after being asked to cease
  • sustained disruption of discussion
  • deliberate “outing” and/or doxing of any person’s identity without their consent
  • publication of non-harassing private communication
If you think some of these should not be removed or hidden (as by hatting), being specific about which and why might be helpful. It would seem courteous to notify the users who talked about the expectations page during it's formation, perhaps with a link at its talk page.
That said, the Meta:Urbanity page looks great. Looks like this was created the month before the Friendly Spaces Expectations and boldly put into place. It would be nice if more people could be made aware of it, such as by including it in Meta:Policies and guidelines. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On the Friendly spaces expectations (continued) (arbitrary break)

Hi @Mdennis (WMF):, I'm not sure what the implication here is. You say the friendly place policy is based on ToU but the next logical implication would be, that meta somehow does not abide by ToU? or that We (Meta community and admins) tolerate harassment and threats? Only logical implication so the staff had to create a separate fort with grants and set up a policy and then censor people just to abide by the same ToU policy?
  • I am also not sure why you mention things like violence, stalking and racial epithets as offending items that are outlawed under ToU - We are well aware. Admins have been doing the job of monitoring and cleaning much much before there were these ToU to codify them. I don't think you would have any disagreements with 90% of the things you are repeating here. I don't know the history of this policy, but you said patrick liaised then who proposed it, where is this consensus? He only offered a single link to babel (which wouldn't even be the right place to propose this), which had two dissenting opinions and nothing more. I must be missing it on this page, so please provide the link where this policy was formulated with the community. Also, bear in mind this is all less than an year old.
  • Meta:urbanity, again is a recent development and a bad example for your own actions. The page was created in 2015 by a fellow community member. It is about civility and etiquette which we all try to abide by. It mentions AGF if you feel attacked, remaining calm and then asking for help from admin if the problem escalates. Patrick mentioned failure to apply this policy of 2015 as impetus for creating friendly space - I asked for example of where he felt the meta admins failed? I would still like to see what prompted creation of this policy - I have faith in the admins here more than anyone else. If something was brought to our attention than I have faith in the community here. Also, I have no idea what reading of Urbanity would say to create a separate namespace and establish a draconian policy of censorship to achieve the same results. It is entirely antithetical to the approach you guys are taking.
  • If you read the objection above, the policy is taking those things way over the line. Merely disagreeing with someone on staff, isn't inherently worthy of removal or hiding - if you would read through the objections here, there are legitimate concerns about censoring opinions that aren't in absolutely one-sided in support. Disagreement in itself wasn't, isn't and will never be outside the purview of any ToU. In the interest of impartiality, how about you let neutral admins decide on case-by-case basis just like 99.9% of the wiki-verse instead of this policy?
Maggie, I hope as a senior staff member you can admit or at least recognise there is a problem here, instead of ignoring it. You can read through the comments and it reads like another one of those community vs staff discussions, with each side picked. If you would read through, your staff isn't changing anyone's mind, neither are they making a good case here. You have admins and long term community members telling you there is a problem here - don't just say, this was the way it is and you are trying to do your job - I have read far too many of those discussions. It really doesn't matter what happened or who proposed what. Recognise there is a problem here and please try to address it. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
To reinforce what Theo is saying, the behaviours forbidden in Meta:Urbanity (itself just representing common practice) have always been unacceptable on Meta. I understand that most staff are from the English-speaking world and probably enwiki, but you should understand that enwiki has over 300 policies and guidelines. Most projects have significantly less, and don't feel the need to legislate the obvious. The issue has and will be administration - Meta admins aren't around as much as admins dedicated to a specific project, and this is by design. However, we can always be contacted here (a bit less ideal in cases of abusive behaviour tbh) Ajraddatz (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ajraddatz. And I would clarify on one minor point, if I may. ;) This is my opinion only, I think we have enough admins here, good ones in fact, great even. I've always been happy of admin and steward conduct and the conduct of my fellow community members. They are a very diverse group, much more so than any other language or project. We are located all over the world, it ensures that a) There is always someone around b) Language is rarely a problem. There are wonderful admins/stewards here from en.wp and commons who go above and beyond to help and be accommodating given our diversity. There is rarely any trouble requiring more than one admin's involvement. And considering a lot of questionable admin conduct on other large project, I think we do a good job here without an arbcomm type body or lengthy disputes. Meta, does fine given the admin it has for a wiki its size. They have never disappointed me in the last 7-8 years I've been around. I have faith in these people, I suggest you do too. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Maggie, I have to say I am disappointed in your answer. The issue under discussion is, as far as I can determine, the perception by some volunteers of high-handed behaviour of certain WMF staff: that staff are perceived as regarding themselves as in a position to impose procedures and policies on mere volunteers and Community members, and that their behaviour is not only uncollegial but counterproductive. The special Friendly Space policy for the Grants namespace is seen as such an imposition. To suggest, as you seem to do, that to question the way in which that policy was imposed, or the way it relates to other policies, is somehow condoning the behaviours it prohibits ("If you think some of these should not be removed") is frankly unreasonable and, if not a simple mistake on your part, at best an unfair debating tactic. Please think again and give us a more considered view about whether the current mode of behaviour of your staff could become more collegial and better aligned to the long-term interests of the Grants programme. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Theo10011, Ajraddatz - I'm afraid that I have pretty limited time at the moment (we're getting ready for Wikimania and our Board presentation there and also preparing for the next quarter), but I'll try to address major points. Hopefully I won't miss anything.
  • My point in mentioning the TOU is because the Expectations document does - and probably for the same reason. These expectations are based on existing policy. They're not new policy that need consensus.
  • In terms of admins doing the job, they certainly do and long have been; we've been grateful to them for assisting with problems many times. However, I'm not aware of any rule that says only admins may remove content that violates TOU. It isn't spelled out at Meta:Administrators, and as far as I can tell Meta:Urbanity does not mandate, request or even advise seeking an administrator to remove content that is highly incivil or insulting. It simply acknowledges that you may do so. In my 9 years as a Wikipedian (albeit not really active at the moment), it's been my experience that editors are permitted to remove personal attacks on sight. Of course Meta admins don't go through and patrol all this. It was never their jobs.
  • If the expectations are being applied in a way they should not be, that's certainly worth calling out and refining practice, especially if you think they're being used to remove or hide content simply because it's disagreeing with staff. However, I believe that's independent from the fact that people have a right to know under what conditions this work will be done.
  • Ajraddatz, my understanding is that one of the reasons for these expectations was fears voiced by contributors from those very smaller communities who either had had bad experiences on other projects or had heard alarming stories and who wanted some assurance that they could expect to be treated with courtesy, even when disagreed with. This is particularly important when quite a few people are drawn to these conversations by external canvassing on sites that politically oppose some of the issues Idea Lab is intended to confront. (Sadly, this happens. We know of several such cases of canvassing for trolling related to the current campaign.)
  • Rogol Domedonfors, the Grants namespace is not used only by staff, but by community. These expectations protect everyone. Harassment is forbidden by our TOU. Defining harassment is open to conversation, but that basic policy is already binding. As I noted above within this response, there doesn't seem to be anything extraordinary about removing personal attacks, from Meta or elsewhere. If stuff is being removed that shouldn't be, that is something that should be discussed. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Maggie, I'm sorry to say that the comment you address to me is so far from being a response to the point I made that I can only conclude that I wrote it too obscurely for someone as busy as yourself. Perhaps when you have a moment you could consider instead the point I raised [11] on your talk page on a closely related matter on 30 May? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Rogol Domedonfors. I had written my response and failed to save. When I tried to save, I saw and attempted to answer your note. But I do intend to respond to you. I understand what you say about imposing procedures and being uncollegial and counterproductive, but I do not see this as such a case. I reiterate that these expectations are based upon an existing policy - one which underwent months of consultation - and that if the expectations set forth which are based on understanding of that policy seem wrong in any respect, that's worth discussing. I stand by the belief that making these expectations explicit is a good thing and important in this work. With respect to the Code of Conduct, I believe staff are putting considerable time into moving that to the next stage, currently focusing on constituting the committee. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
What a long thread this is. Some asked about how this started. As I recall it was here Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women#Keeping_discussion.2C_comments_and_opposition_on_discussion_page_.28more_room_to_discuss_here.21.29 when a hundred or so individuals appeared at this discussion after being directed there from a gamergate-related subreddit. Kind of interesting to read the whole thing through. —Neotarf (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Back to the main header

I also rise the allegation of staff acting biased in this campaign. Additionally, I want to make public the fact that staff (Patrick Earley (WMF), I JethroBT (WMF)) does not only partition endorsement and denial, but also simply declares submissions to be "ineligible", not caring even the fraction of a second that these ideas were at the top of the leaderboard. I strongly confirm that these ideas (I am talking about more than one!) did not only enjoy broad endorsements, but also were formulated fully de rigeur and in a way indisputably fitting to "Friendly Space Expectations", whereas I do perceive actions based solely on the unlimited administrative but not on argumentative power of making ideas invisible, deleting contributions on talk pages, and similar, as a form not only of censorship, but also of harassment, currently in the focus.

The talk page can be used to debate about harassment or express concerns about the campaign. Your commentary that people are too sensitive and alarmist, that harassment that happens online is not actual harassment, and that the responsibility of dealing with harassment is primarily the problem of those who receive it are all reasons your submission is out of scope for the campaign. That it has a lot of endorsements only reinforces the issue of why this campaign is necessary. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF):I am deeply concerned that I was not able to express sufficiently clearly my humble attempts of launching an idea involving "lowering raising the trigger level" for harassment alarms in a way that you could not misinterpret it as claiming that online harassment were no actual harassment, and that the responsibility for dealing with harassment were primarily on the receivers side. I am disappointed that some officials call my idea just a "comment", when it was intended as setting up a target, worth to ponder.
Nevertheless, all this is only a small part of the resentments, triggered by a wealth of staff's deeds in a broad context just within this campaign, which I expressed above in my consent with Ajraddatz. Not dealing with these objections on an argumentative but only on a bureaucratic level, by authoritatively fixing a rather arbitrary, narrow scope, enforces the resentment. Dealing in the same censoring way with other submissions (leaderboard, hint, hint, ...) too, should be sufficient reason for reconsidering the manners you personally, presumptively in submissively obeying commands by Patrick Earley (WMF), enact within this WIKI(!). Purgy (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I've struggled to figure out a proper response to this thread. I've heard these concerns before—during the first Inspire campaign, and even when we launched the Teahouse, which also has its own behavioral guidelines and operating procedures that are different from the rest of EnWiki. I guess you could say I understand these objections in principle, but not in practice.
Heather, Siko, and I created the IdeaLab in 2013 with a dual purpose in mind:
  1. As a 'Drafts' namespace for potential grantees, so they could develop their ideas openly and collaboratively, without the high stakes of working directly on a grant application in public, with all the (real or perceived) expectations of completeness, correctness, and public scrutiny that entails. Also, to make the task a little less daunting: the grant application template is uuuuuuge and contains a lot of questions, headings, etc. that can't be addressed until much later in the process.
  2. As a community space where anyone could create an idea for a project, even a two-sentence stub of an idea, and that idea would be lightly curated, formatted, and archived and could be expanded/adapted/adopted at a later date, by anyone. Or not—that was fine too.
As with the Teahouse, I've always thought of the IdeaLab as a sort of WikiProject. WikiProjects have their own spaces that they organize the way they see fit, within bounds. If you walk into an established project and start changing templates or posting comments in the "wrong" places—in short, if you don't abide by the local norms—someone will likely revert that edit, or move your comment to the locally appropriate forum. Local norms are not a new thing on wiki. They're not a new thing on Meta. And they're definitely not a new thing when it comes to spaces that are primarily curated by WMF staff, rather than people who aren't currently being paid to edit the wiki. The Resources team coordinates hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants through Meta every year, and they couldn't do that work effectively if they hadn't been allowed a good bit of leeway in the way they maintain their processes and pages.
The IdeaLab works in a particular way, and (especially during the Inspire campaigns) is being used for a very particular purpose. That purpose falls within the purview of the Meta project, and is well integrated with the main work of the WMF Resources team, a key community stakeholder on Meta. No one has to participate in the IdeaLab. For those that choose to do so, the norms of participation are clearly documented (not just in the Friendly Space Expectations, but also in Grants:IdeaLab/How_it_works, which provides a rationale for the placement of endorsements vs "opposition" that I don't need to re-hash).
Why is it a problem, then, that the IdeaLab is designed in a particular way to suit a particular purpose, and enforces a few, lightweight participation norms? Note that I'm not asking "why can't anyone set up any portal on any wiki for any purpose any way they want?" or "Why can't the Wikimedia Foundation do whatever it wants whenever it wants—because forget you, community!?". Rather, why is this a problem?
Actually asking. Not a rhetorical question. Also, I'm no longer directly involved in the IdeaLab, Inspire Campaign, or the Resources team, and my opinions are my own. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


@Jmorgan (WMF): thank you for replying, in spite of struggles. I am not absolutely sure, if I understand your question in the intended way, since I am not native in English, but it makes me unsure about its intention, because you mention having read concerns about the "climate" ("air", ???) within these campaigns already earlier. It is of no big help to learn afterwards that this WMF section has been created by Heather, Siko, and you in 2013 with some specific agenda in mind. Any visitor, lured from any other WIKI(!) by invitational and inviting banners, assumes a fair, open-minded environment, in which one expresses ideas to achieve sort of an optimal solution, and not a biased bureaucracy with hidden to secret targets up the sleeve, totally contrary to any spirit of a true WIKI(!).
One should be warned when clicking these banners
You are now leaving the open-minded region, and enter places with palmed agendae.
Prepare to be forced to rules alien to your mind.
Please notice, I do not insinuate that these were your intentions when creating this space, but please, let me assure that this is the way I perceived how my suggestion and those of others, too, are treated around here. For completeness sake, I'd like to emphasize that it was not me who started changing templates in my submission. This place definitely is not up to develop ideas openly and collaboratively, but rather to pursue a priori fixed goals by brainstorming for supportive thoughts only.
This -certainly not illegal, but contradictory in WIKIs- bias should be made explicit a priori, too. Purgy (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Purgy Purgatorio:. Thank you for your reply. I don't see these actions as censorship, or believe they are in any way sinister. But I saw a lot of abuse directed against idea creators (and WMF staff) during the first Inspire campaign, much of which came from SPAs who descended on ideas that they were ideologically opposed to and spewed bile, or filling the forum we'd set aside for idea creators to get help with angry rants. If moving or removing those comments, and making other design decisions that encourage encouragement, gave even one person the confidence to propose an idea that they had previously been afraid to raise on wiki... then I stand by that decision. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jmorgan (WMF): It looks to me like you beat about the bush, to justify something with which the community disagrees. In regard to the founding/wiki principles, you have to ask yourself if it is morally okay to ignore the community. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter:, I don't see it as a moral issue. I see it as a governance issue. One group of community members in this discussion (most or all of whom are current WMF staff), would like to run a particular on-wiki process in a particular way. Another group of community members in this discussion (most or all of whom are not current WMF staff) want to change the process. The vast majority of people involved in the process are not participating in this discussion; the vast majority of potential stakeholders in the process are not involved either. Those of us involved in the discussion are taking on the daunting task of bringing a dog's breakfast of potentially applicable rules, principles, norms, and precedents to bear on the decisions at hand, while asserting that we can speak for the will of a vast, loosely organized movement composed of people who don't know this conversation is happening, and whose input we could never actually integrate into our decision-making even if they cared to to give it. In other words, it's a governance issue. In my original statement, I attempted to provide some background, and then asked a specific question to better ascertain the positions of others in the discussion, to help work towards a solution. I don't think framing this dispute as a Foundation/community issue is particularly productive, because a) the Foundation staff are part of the community, and b) the non-staff community members in this discussion do not represent the will of the entire community, nor do they have a privileged position vis a vis the interpretation or application of founding principles. But given that all of use here are equal stakeholders, and we seem to be invested, perhaps we can find a solution that we can agree to abide by. Hopefully one that we all feel does a reasonably good job of addressing the needs of the giant community we are purporting to represent. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jmorgan (WMF): Of course there is a substantial moral and governance issue, it is explaining itself. To be honest, i am shocked about your replies here. A WMF grants vs community battle. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
When is it time to just say “I guess that didn't work. It seemed like a good idea, we tried, but it lead to suppression and censorship and bias, which are unacceptable. When I change the others will appreciate my actions.”? Sammy D III (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sammy D III: I don't agree with your assertion that moving a comment from one page to another constitutes censorship. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jmorgan (WMF): I agree that there is no censorship, some of my posts have been a cheap use of the word. I will retract the word anywhere I should, but will stand behind a couple. I stand behind “bias”, “delete”, and “suppress”. Especially “delete”, “move” is a cover word. My good-faith comment was deleted from the discussion it was posted in, and then posted somewhere else. (Deep breath). Anyway, it's evening here, have a good whatever it is there. Sammy D III (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Sammy D III. It's early evening here on Whidbey Island. I believe I understand your points more clearly now. I'm going to take a few deep breaths myself before wading back into this discussion, but will post some further thoughts on this thread tomorrow. I'll try to keep them concise and constructive. Talk to you then, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a helpful summary. Thank you, @Rschen7754:.
  • Exactly this. Most of us are not concerned with the topic of the campaign, but rather with how the IdeaLab is set up. I don't like the fact that there needs to be a separately make and enforced behaviour policy when Meta-Wiki already has one. I don't like the fact that community concerns over how the IdeaLab pages are structured are summarily ignored, rather than engaged with. If the community is complaining about the separation of the support/oppose ideas, then it's the responsibility of the staff running the campaign to respond to those concerns and fix them, rather than telling tens of people off. This is Meta-Wiki; the same expectations of collaborative work apply to everyone, community and staff. Edit: I think you'll also find that per-namespace behavioural norms are quite alien on most projects. All of your experience is on enwiki, and that's fine. But whereas enwiki quite often allows behaviour that is not acceptable anywhere else, and needs to set up a "safe space" for the teahouse to prevent the usual incivility and other such behaviour, most projects just enforce those standards across the board. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    Another long thread here, but I linked above to this discussion, where the format seems to have first evolved. In that discussion a lot of weight was given to the wishes of the person who drafted the idea. If the OP doesn't mind, why don't you just structure the conversation in whatever way works best for you all? The staff has already given plenty of examples of groups that are already doing that. What's with all the long discussion here, just do it. —Neotarf (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you , @Ajraddatz:. I believe I understand your position, even if I disagree with what I believe is your main point. The IdeaLab definitely needs to be a safe space--at least, during Inspire Campaigns. I saw behavior during the first Inspire campaign that makes the way English Wikipedia treats newbies look gentle and nurturing by comparison.
These campaigns bring in a flood of new people to Meta. Many of these community members are unaccustomed to the nuts and bolts of editing--I'm speaking of researchers, educators, program leaders, and software developers whose contributions to the movement don't always involve substantial editing or frequent participation in on-wiki culture. These folks are often less confident with editing, less knowledgeable about norms, and may be unaccustomed to the way people speak to one another on Meta. And we're asking them to enter an unfamiliar environment and share their ideas with an unknown audience.
Inspire Campaigns also often bring in a flood of SPA's to Meta, people who show up primarily to flood the chan, disrupt the process, and shout down people who don't agree with them. This shouldn't be a surprise: two of the three Inspire campaigns have addressed topics that are highly polarizing within the open web broadly. They're also topics that, when they've been raised elsewhere in the past, have frequently resulted in abusive behavior directed towards the people who raised them, and anyone else implicated by association.
As you noted yourself above, the process for reporting and resolving abusive behavior on Meta is not "ideal". The current process is certainly not set up to deal with the volume of abusive behavior that can potentially (and in the case of the first Inspire Campaign at least, did actually) occur. If there's a will among the Meta admins to regulate this behavior more proactively and expediently, I'm sure the WMF staff involved in the campaigns would welcome their involvement. I haven't seen much evidence of such a will, but I would love to be proven wrong on this point.
Ultimately, if this issue can be resolved by removing the endorsements section from the page, then I am happy to join Team Remove. Because the real issue for me is much broader: the IdeaLab absolutely does need to be designed and managed in such a way that a) encourages participation by people who have ideas to share, and legitimate apprehensions about sharing them on a Wikimedia wiki, and b) mitigates the negative impact of inevitable trolling, mass disruption, and abusive behavior. The current strategies in place are doing that effectively, and throwing them out without a better solution in place is going to leave a lot of good-faith contributors vulnerable to abuse and undermine the substantial work that went into IdeaLab and Inspire.
I agree that staff need to respond proactively to community concerns. But staff are also community members, and on Meta staff have a long-standing, significant, and critical stake in project governance decisions. This isn't the same issue as the MediaViewer scandal, the VisualEditor fiasco, or the SuperProtect "putch". A lot of staff work here, on this wiki, and have for many years. If we're going to continue to run Foundation programs on public wikis, the staff who edit those wikis need to be treated as equal partners, not interlopers or would-be overlords. Based on the way you have engaged in this discussion, I think you may even agree with me. But many of the comments I've seen in my time here, including comments in this discussion, suggest to me that the Meta community more broadly wants WMF out. And that, ultimately, will benefit no one. Is there room for a compromise solution in this case, or is the consensus among non-staff that WMF needs to completely dismantle every part of the IdeaLab pages and process that has been called out as objectionable by anyone? Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Please don't set up strawman positions like this. Is there substantial evidence that the "Meta community more broadly wants WMF out" or that there is a "consensus among non-staff that WMF needs to completely dismantle every part of the IdeaLab pages and process that has been called out as objectionable by anyone"? I think not. There is at least some evidence that the local norms set and enforced by staff in the Grants space have been unexpected by community members used to other projects, or other parts of Meta, and that staff have not been as proactive as they might be in explaining what these local norms are and why they need to be different. There is also evidence that some community members have interpreted the attitude of some staff members as high-handed. There is perhaps evidence that some staff members take the view that community members who are not regular participants in Grants discussions do not have the best interests of the Grants process at heart. Can we now address the concerns that have actually been expressed by community members rather than these unproductive exaggerations? The veiled threat that if community members are not nicer to staff then the Foundation will take its discussions away to private spaces is not the way to achieve the compromise solution you ask for. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Moving WMF operations off Meta is not within my power. Nor is it an option I would pursue if it were, so please take my comments as they were stated and intended, Rogol Domedonfors. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I do not know what you intended to say, I can only go by what you did say, and I would prefer it if you would do the same for me. I thought, and think, that your comment "If we're going to continue to run Foundation programs on public wikis, the staff who edit those wikis need to be treated as equal partners" sounded like a veiled threat that if volunteers did not behave better to staff, then "we" (whoever "we" refers to) would take these discussions off Meta (which is a public wiki). You say that you personally have no power to do this, and would not pursue it. That may be so, but it is not the same as saying that your previous comment does not sound like a veiled threat, and it is not the same as saying that this move would not happen -- it is saying that you can and would not do it personally. So please address the point under discussion, not these similar-sounding-but-actually-rather-different points.
A similar remark applies to the question "Why is it a problem, then, that the IdeaLab is designed in a particular way to suit a particular purpose, and enforces a few, lightweight participation norms?" Nobody has been suggesting that the IdeaLab should not have a design, and nobody has been suggesting that it should not have norms. What there has been discussion about is the nature and purpose of those designs and norms, the extent to which they differ from users' expectations, the extent to which their nature and purpose is explained to users, the manner in which they are enforced and the perceived attitudes of those enforcing them. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
As I stated in the sign-off of that comment, I asked that question in earnest, based on my understand of the issue at hand, which I had gleaned from previous comments in the thread, Rogol Domedonfors. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you could remind us of the comments made here or elsewhere that support the asertion, made in earnest, that members of the community believe that it is a problem that IdeLab is designed to suit a purpose, or that it is a problem that they should have norms, as opposed to the nature and operation of that design and those norms? I do not believe such an assertion can be supported and I personally see no point in discussing a question which in my view is based on a mistaken premise. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for everyone, but my goal is to better include IdeaLab here on Meta, not move it off. That's why I want a single behavioural standard, rather than a mish-mash of policies by namespace like what is happening now. I'm not saying that the ideas should be an area for the usual dickishness; I want to reinforce positive interactions across Meta, rather than looking at every issue as a zero-sum game. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A related but different question

It seems that a member of staff has taken it upon themselves to move a number of conversation from one talk page [12] to another [13] for reasons that are not entirely clear ("moving meta-level comments about the campaign") but appear to signify that in their personal opinions the discussions are better placed, which may or may not be correct, but was certainly not discussed or explained on either page. (I should point out that this is not an example of the behaviour discussed above.) Is moving conversations without consultation or notification a privilege reserved to WMF staff, or are any users allowed to do this whenever they see fit? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


Note This discussion is going nowhere. Some of the staff also mentioned they would be leaving for Wikimania, so this is likely to not get any impactful development until they return next month and even then, things aren't looking like they are going to change. Most of the staff already seem to have disengaged. So, I propose we move this discussion, or someone start an RfC - this page is usually for direct request to admins here not for overdrawn circular discussion this is turning in to. The concerns have been made known to the staff and the grants team - there is no point in defending old decisions and actions or citing policy, it will only go round and round. Please see if you can come up with a better system than the one you have now or at least address some concerns. If you want community input, start an RfC or bring it up in the relevant place but you should really look in to this before it comes to a boil again. This page is not intended for decision-making, and design implementation discussion. I propose we close this discussion and archive it for now, if no one objects. Theo10011 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to start an RfC on merging the friendly space expectations with Meta:Urbanity (and giving the latter a work-over), and try to have my above suggestion implemented regarding the moving of comments. This can probably be closed. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Before we close

Given that most of the relevant discussion is already here, and in the interest of not rehashing the same arguments in an RfC, I wanted to pitch this idea to everyone based on the concerns you've expressed about the way feedback is handled on IdeaLab. You've noted that having endorsements visible and concerns/opposition separated onto the talk page is problematic: It can skew the impression folks have of the idea and people are less likely to see feedback that points out problems or concerns with those ideas. That's not really fair, and I think that makes sense. It's also been noted that it's not clear that ideas need to progress to a grant proposal or be brought back to their local communities for consensus-building (such as through an RfC) in order for them to be implemented. Outside of the issue of Meta:Urbanity and Grants:Friendly space expectations (which we'll need to pick up on after Wikimania as it much more complicated), if I've missed any other concerns, let me know. Based on this feedback, and your suggestions about how to solve it, I think this course of action is appropriate:

  1. More clarification will be provided about what IdeaLab is, that is, a drafting space for ideas, but not a place where proposals get directly implemented. It will be made clear that unless ideas get brought back to their local community for discussion or are submitted for a grant proposal, there isn't really a path for the idea to go anywhere.
  2. Endorsements will no longer be on the main idea page. All feedback -- endorsements, concerns, suggestions, etc. -- will be placed on the talk page.

Although I can't feasibly make changes to the current campaign, it's something I could start working on after Wikimania and would apply to IdeaLab and any future Inspire Campaigns that are run. If this addresses the concerns that have been raised here, I'm happy to make these changes. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @I JethroBT (WMF): this looks like a good way forward. However, I would add one thing - would it be possible to survey or contact users who have participated in the IdeaLabs campaign, and see what impact they saw with endorsements and opposition separated? If idea creators felt that it was a positive thing in this and previous campaigns, then maybe it is something to discuss further before the next campaign. Of course, both on the talk page would be good either way - keeping all discussion in the same place, and separate from the main idea. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I would like to repeat what I JethroBT (WMF) said above -- that we will pick up on the issue of the Friendly Space Expectations after Wikimania. Many of the WMF staff and community members most closely involved with developing and implementing the guidelines will be at Wikimania and traveling for the next few weeks. The issues raised above are challenging ones and require more time to propose the best next steps. We commit to coming back to this discussion and providing an update by the end of July. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Food for thought in the future, no reply needed. Talk pages alone are a mess. Maybe Endorse/Undecided/Oppose (or whatever) on the front, or maybe the top of the talk page. Make it very clear that the post is only supposed to be 2 sentences or X words or whatever long, and there are no replies there. It isn't clear now. Maybe make a way that a person's “vote” can be easily changed with a couple word explanation. The “votes” don't really count, but give a quick overview. Then people could hunt down each other and their thoughts on the talk page. Sammy D III (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 21:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to update the current banner of wle_2016_in Wiki Loves Earth India 2016

Hi there, I had earlier put up this request. We have planned to make the banner more colorful so i would like to request the admin to please edit the current banner of wle_2016_in Wiki Loves Earth India 2016

Campaign
wle_2016_in
Link
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Earth_2016_in_India
Date
From May 31, 2016 - June 30, 2016
Logged in
Yes
Projects
Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikidata, Wikiquotes, WikiBooks, Wikivoyage.
Languages
All
Geo-locate
India
text1

I will also update this on the central notice page of WLE here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Earth_2016/CentralNotice

Thanks Yohannvt (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

These are getting quite spammy. I have seen this banner way too many times than I should have. It might be time to consider lowering priority (especially in large countries) on these campaigns. Theo10011 (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Central notice banner WikiConference

We need a Central-notice banner to publicize the on going participation survey for our WikiConference India 2016.

  • date: June 18, 2016 - June 26, 2016
  • only logged-in users.
  • projects: Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikidata, Wikiquotes, WikiBooks, Wikivoyage.
  • languages: en, hi, as, ur, bn, ur, ml, or, gu, mr, kn, te, ta, pa, sa, pnb, mai, ne, new, as, gom, sd
  • Geo-locate: India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan
  • priority: Maximum
  • text1= WikiConference India 2016 Programs Survey
  • text2 = Participate in WikiConference India 2016 Programs survey and help us learn more about participants capabilities, needs, interests and expectations regarding conference programs.

Thank you. Pinging @Syum90:. Jim Carter (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure whether CentralNotice/Request should not be used instead. @Seddon: Can you help? Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, all CN requests are to be processed there. —MarcoAurelio 15:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe it has been shifted to that page recently. Thanks anyway. Jim Carter (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
P. S. @MarcoAurelio: and @DerHexer: I found the new method of requesting central notice banner quite confusing. Perhaps because of lack of instruction. Jim Carter (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 08:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Central notice banner WikiLovesEarth

For WikiLovesEarth (India), wee need this central banner: Commons:Wiki_Loves_Earth_2016/CentralNotice#Indian_Design

  • date: From now to 10 days (or till next update)
  • only logged-in users.
  • projects: Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikidata, Wikiquotes, WikiBooks.

languages: en, hi, as, bn, ur, ml, mr, or, gu, kn, te, ta, pa, sa, pnb, mai, ne, new, as, gom, sd, ur

  • Geo-locate: India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh

Let us know if you have any question
Thank you and regards. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: You have to file a request at CentralNotice/Request. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 08:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for CentralNotice banner

Hi all! I would some help to create a CentralNotice banner for our new contest -> https://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Concurso_Wikisource_2016_%28WMAR%29 planned by Wikimedia Argentina.

We want one campaign:

Thanks! --Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, enabled. Currently without diluting views, perhaps later it should be narrowed to just some % of users. --Base (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Base can we add the central notice banner to Wikipedia for a few days? Only in Logged in user. Thanks a lot :) --Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry just got to respond here. Could you clarify which few days, please? :) --Base (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Giselle Bordoy (WMAR), I've currently enabled it from tomorrow to 19th including, for 30% of logged in users. Feel free to ask if you need more, I just want to be sure that we do not oversaturate them with banners as well :) --Base (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BaseI know that now there ir a banner for Wikimania, so if we can put it from June 28th to July 1th itś ok. Thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) (talk) Matiia (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 16:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

CentralNotice - Community usage guideline overhaul

Hi. Centralnotice is getting a lot more usage than expected. Per this and the growing number of community centralnotice requests, I think we should revisit the original usage guidelines. When we started writing those original guidelines, no one expected centralnotice usage would be this high. There are way too many campaign requests and having 2-3 banners always running is getting to be a norm. it is really burning out the pageview and the value of that space - it's downright moving towards becoming a permanent internal advertisement platform. This is not helpful for the community, the staff (the fundraising department especially). It's becoming quite an annoyance in larger countries where this translates into several hundred million views.

So, I propose an overhaul. I have some ideas. I would like to ask for help from other admins, community members, staff and anyone interested to look at these guidelines and update them. This should be of concern to most admins who address banner requests here - your input would be appreciated. For staff, this really isn't intended to affect any WMF related campaigns, just community and chapter originated requests. Pinging people who might be interested Ajraddatz, PiRSquared17,Nemo_bis and MZMcBride. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved my comment to the talk page thread mentioned. --Base (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Theo, I'll take a look and comment there. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Update- I added some suggestions there to be added to guidelines. This would concern most admins handling central notice requests. Please take a look and comment. Hiya, MarcoAurelio Vituzzu and other stewards, I hope you guys also take a look and offer some feedback, if you have some time. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of central-notice adminship for Benoit Rochon

The following discussion is closed.

Hi everyone, As the previous section says, Benoit Rochon created a site notice campain on French Wikipedia without consulting the community there before. This, sadly, shows a lack of prudence and measurement not suitable with the use of these particular tools. Léna (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was a (big) mystake to create this campaign, because there was no consensus on French Wikipedia, but maybe we can wait for his explanations? Best regards, Jules78120 (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe should it be better, before any removal of central-notice adminship, to ask Benoit Rochon about the reasons of his action (why did he choose this way, was he alone to choose this action, etc.)
I saw, on French language Wikipedia, an explanation written by the chair of the French chapter (« Il y a eu des idées de réactions sur deux bistros et des contributeurs ont choisi de mettre un bandeau. »), but this explanation should be considered, as we say in French, to be « un peu courte » (I don't know the possible translation in English for this distinct sense).
Hégésippe | ±Θ± 15:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
As for me, I think someone or a few people have asked this contributor to perform this action because he had the opportunity. Also, I expect that those responsible be denounced and subject to punishment. I think there are other people behind this. Note that this notice also appear here and on Wikidata, so the problem isn't solved. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
This is both fr:FED and irrelevant. He did not respect the principles behind CentralNotice/Usage guidelines, including focus and community approval. Hence, he shoudln't have the tools.Léna (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd love to hear from Benoit on this given the community concerns, before bureaucrats take a decision. Has he been informed about this thread? On the other hand, a request to remove rights might be started on Meta:Requests for centralnotice adminship/Benoit Rochon (removal). I expect we can sort this out without having to do that though. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 08:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello MarcoAurelio, Léna, Jules78120 and Hégésippe. I wish to react more quickly to community messages, but I was at the airport for 12 hours, returning to Montreal from Wikimania 2016. As I explain on Wikipédia Village pump, I lacked judgment by running the banner as per a request from a small part of the French community present at Wikimania without consulting the whole community first. According to those discussions, French community had 3 days to react and I was asked if I can do something with central notice.
I am responsible for clicking the "Run" button, and it was my duty to explain to people at Wikimania the rules regarding banners. Now, if the community votes to withdraw my adminship, I would agree because I lacked judgment by accepting the request of people attending Wikimania.
Accept my apologies. Benoit Rochon (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
As I said, it's a big mystake, "a lack of prudence" as said Léna, but I trust more someone who recognizes his mystakes in good faith, than people who don't. If you understand what led you to make this mistake and if you pledge to always check if the community has been consulted or warned (even if the banner is "urgent"), I don't think it's necessary to withdraw your adminship. So the question is: do you think you can keep the CN tool without doing the same mystake again? If the answer is yes, keep it.
Kind regards, Jules78120 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes I made a mistake. I am terribly sorry about this situation. I wish I can go back. It was my responsibility to explain the rules of CentralNotice to people at Wikimania and consult the whole French community at first. I will sure never do this mistake again.
Now, I wait wisely the decision of the community to withdraw the admin tools or not. Again, I apologize to everyone. Regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
NB: there is no need to be CN admin to know that asking the community for consensus is needed. So yes, you have to explain the rules of CentralNotice as an admin and check if they are followed, but everybody should already know that —for CentralNotice as for any other big choice— Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects are driven by consensus. And in this case, how could people around the table don't know that there are always debates about "political" banners? I don't understand. Regards, Jules78120 (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Without digging much into understanding of the concrete situation, I'd rather we do not have removals for single mistakes even if big ones. We speak about humans, not perfected bots after all. It looks that the user has recognised that he was wrong and this, in my opinion, is enough to let him have another chance. It would though justify much stricter approach in case the user repeats the mistake. --Base (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • CN banner (especially when enabled for logged-out users as well, which was the case here) can have a big impact. But i agree with Base. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I hope this is resolved locally. Benoit seems to be back and replying. If the community accepts his apology than this matter can be closed. If they wish for a flag removal, MarcoAurelio gave a link to where your removal request should go. If there is consensus, the flag would be removed. Either way, it's a local community issue, they should proceed as they see fit. Theo10011 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that we should trust someone who recognizes his mistakes in good faith, and that humans make mistakes. Benoit explained the context of his action, acknowledged the problem and is now very aware of the sensitivity of this issue and the protocols for consulting the community if such a request is transmitted to him again. Seeris (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't agree with removing the CA admin flag; we're all human, and the fact that Benoit is willing to admit his mistakes and learn from them is fine for me. As Theo says, hopefully any specific issues with the banner can be resolved as appropriate. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Closed. I think that the issues have been properly addressed and no further action is required for now. Benoit acknowledged the mistake, so, per Base et al., I think we can move on. —MarcoAurelio 22:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your indulgence. Benoit Rochon (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 16:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for central notice banner

Hi all, I would like a central notice administrator or a local administrator to create a Central Notice banner for the WikiConference India 2016's call for new proposals.

  • Campaign Link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConference_India_2016/Call_for_Participation
  • Date: From June 28, 2016 - July 20, 2016 IST
  • Logged in: Yes
  • Projects: Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikidata, Wikiquotes, WikiBooks, Wikivoyage.
  • Languages: en, hi, bn, ur, ml, or, gu, mr, ka, ta, pa, sa, te, as, gom, ne, mai, pnb, my, sd, si, bpy, new, bh
  • Geo-locate: India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan

text1 The Wikimedia India Conference 2016 is now open for new proposals, submit your proposals by July 20, 2016 IST.

Thanks in advance. --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also requested at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Request/Wiki_Conference_India_2016:_Call_for_Papers#Wiki_Conference_India_2016:_Call_for_Papers --Ravi (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Not done, because all CN campaigns are now handled via the process at CentralNotice/Requests. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 08:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 16:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for CentralNotice banner

Hi all! I would some help to create a CentralNotice banner for our an edit-a-thon -> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encuentros/Editat%C3%B3n_en_el_Hotel_de_Inmigrantes I'm already request this banner a few weeks ago but I think that nobody do it because I didn't made the request. Its a shame because I need it soon. Here is the request-> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Request/Editatón_Hotel_de_Inmigrantes

We want one campaign:

    • link: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encuentros/Editat%C3%B3n_en_el_Hotel_de_Inmigrantes
    • from July 4th to July 16 th, 2016.
    • Logged in, anonymous.
    • In AR. In the projects Wikipedia y Wikimedia Commons.
    • text1: ¡Te invitamos a la editatón en el Hotel de Inmigrantes!
    • text2: Te esperamos el sábado 16 de julio de 11 a 16 horas en Av. Antártida Argentina 1355 (entre Dirección Nacional de Migraciones y Buquebus). Entrada por Apostadero Naval, Puerto Madero.

Thanks a lot! --Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

CentralNotice requests are no longer processed here: See CentralNotice/Request. Thanks. — regards, Revi 16:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Revi, I made the request here and that area because here I put the message of the banner. Thanks! --Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See other requests as examples (Wikiconference India might be good example) and you'll know how to put the text in your request. — regards, Revi 17:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all the information Revi--Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

request meta block for User:Ajraddatz

User:Ajraddatz refuses to refactor his remarks, despite repeated requests from other editors.[14] given the strong consensus about vocabulary here [15], i would suggest a block, until he can abide community norms. Slowking4 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Slowking, I've read Ajr's remarks and I don't see how they can be construed as in contrast with our urbanity policy. Please note that a debate (which is still ongoing) on the naming of a page is not the same as deciding the expression is unacceptable. I don't see any intent to make a personal attack on anybody in Ajr's remarks and so see no grounds for a block, imho. Snowolf How can I help? 01:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
+1 to Snowolf. This is an outrageous request to threaten and censor someone. Theo10011 (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The irony here is that I generally do support efforts at making Meta-Wiki a nicer place, and while I don't see any issue with the word "dickishness" in a general context, I would have been happy to change it had there been a simple request for that. Instead: my comment was edited without my consent, I was implied to be a disruptive editor who should be blocked (Special:Diff/15730533), and it was suggested that I was flouting the behavioural norms of Meta (Special:Diff/15729581) - implying intentional action on my part to go against the standards of civility here. They wanted my comment modified to allow for a more congenial editing environment, but in the process did things which represent the worst of on-wiki interactions and go far more towards creating a toxic environment for contributing than any one word that I chose to write. I will probably change the comment at some time, because one person had the decency of asking nicely, but it will not be in response to this sort of abusive behaviour. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    As an addendum, I do apologize to the Meta-Wiki community for being at the centre of some drama like this. I almost always avoid such things, but this is one case where I would like to stand up to clearly abusive comments and actions directed against me over a wording choice of all things. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
you have already lost one productive editor to meta interaction over this incident, how many editors are you prepared to lose? the clear consensus linked to from 2 years ago, is not to use this phrase. either enforce civility on meta, or let everyone know that meta is not a safe space. i'm already organizing off-wiki, when the staff ask why don't i interact more via meta, i will link to this discussion. Slowking4 (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Who, Neotarf? The person who led the campaign to change the title of the "Don't be a dick" page to "Don't be a jerk", and who is banned from enwiki for similar GG-style behaviour? Unfortunate, though given their past actions, not surprising. And again, if you are trying to get me to change my wording to make things more welcoming and inclusive here, threatening me with off-wiki harassment isn't the best way to do this. Why is it that the "friendlier" crowd can't make a comment without including a threat or insult? Ajraddatz (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
And now see this latest post on my talk page, where I am congratulated for my "mouth full of shit" according to the video. Is it clear yet which side is actually being abusive and preventing a congenial editing environment here? Ajraddatz (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Alternative proposal. I'd like to see if we can temper some of the attitudes here on different sides of this issue and find some agreement. This discussion was originally about IdeaLab / the Inspire Campaign that I maintain, so I am using my staff account accordingly:
  • Ajraddatz is concerned that redacting his comments before an attempt to actually talk to him directly is hostile. Ajr, I believe Neotarf was trying to implement their interpretation of Meta:Urbanity in good faith, and I also agree that approaching you directly with their concerns first would have been a better approach. Neotarf, would you be willing to do this in the future? I think Ajraddatz and others would be willing to reconsider their language choices if it's brought to their attention in this manner.
  • Neotarf is concerned over the use of expressions (in this case, being a dick / dickishness) that create an unwelcoming environment. In the interest of not rehashing the whole debate over this term, I don't think there is anything wrong with folks saying, "Hey, that term is offensive to me, could you consider changing it to something else?" in general. Ajraddatz, I know it wasn't asked to you in this manner initially, but it's what I tried to do here, and others have also done so. I think it's important to try to respect those requests. Ajraddatz, would you be willing to consider changing the language to simply rudeness as you've already suggested there?
And please folks, I know there are strong feelings all around here, but we're just going to keep pushing each other away if we can't find some common ground and try to move forward. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): I'm getting a bit sick of repeating myself here, but you haven't been involved in the conversation save one comment so I'll summarise one more time in a very plain way for all to see.
  • I have no issue changing my comment. While the word "dickishness" has been acceptable on Wikimedia projects for 15 years, I understand the need to update our norms and values. The word isn't one I would use in casual conversation with my grandparents, so there is no need to use it here. I certainly did not intend to cause offence using the word (as I'm sure is obvious).
  • As a reaction to my single wording choice, I have been subject to the following: My comment was edited without my permission, and it was implied that my use of the word was intentionally negative. It was then implied by a different user that I was intentionally violating Meta-Wiki's behavioural norms, and that I should be blocked as a disruptive editor. This section was then made here requesting that I be blocked, and it was further suggested that off-wiki harassment would occur and a message was left on my talk page suggesting that I have a "mouth full of shit", surely a more inflammatory phrase than using the word "dickishness" generally since it was targeted at me.
  • Given this abusive treatment of myself, I will not change the wording at this time because I cannot condone such action. I happen to be an admin here, and an established enough member of the community that I am able to argue my case here without being instantly blocked. But what about another editor in a different situation? The way to handle concerns like this is with a polite message, not any of the above actions. When the other actions have been withdrawn, condemned, and apologized for then I am free to remove the comment based on the polite request that you provided. But I will not do it before then. These types of reactions go far more towards making Meta-Wiki an unwelcoming place than me using the word "dickishness", and we should take a stand against such treatment of people who happen to use the "wrong" word in a comment. At no point in this case have I engaged in personal attacks, harassment, or threats, yet all have been directed against me. That is unacceptable. We have standards for behaviour on this wiki, and those standards have clearly been breached - and not by me.
TL;DR I'll change my wording eventually and will refrain from such wording in the future, but there are serious issues with how the "friendly" side has handled this that must be recognised and responded to. This isn't ideology, this isn't political, this is basic human decency, and it is quite frankly ridiculous that some people aren't recognising that here. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: please stop trolling. @I JethroBT (WMF): please stop facilitating his trolling. Both of you: thanks in advance.Both of you aren't made of sugar. Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tropicalkitty (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for CentralNotice banner

Hi all! I would some help to create a CentralNotice banner for our new contest -> https://es.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikiviajes:Wikimedia_Argentina/Concurso_WikiTour2016 planned by Wikimedia Argentina.

  • We want one campaign:

--Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm on it. —MarcoAurelio 10:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. —MarcoAurelio 10:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Marco Aurelio — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) (talk)
No problem, on the other hand, I'd love if @Jseddon (WMF) could review this. It looks an excesive long running banner (from June to September), and while I've set it as low priority and limited to 30% of traffic, I'm not sure we've set so long banners in the past. Please advice. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 15:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah this is excessively long for a campaign. Really this should not be more than around a month long. Even our biggest community campaigns rarely go on for longer than a month. Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok sorry @Jseddon (WMF) and Marco if you can put the banner for a month itś ok. Thanks guys. --Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jseddon (WMF) and Giselle Bordoy (WMAR) - I've reduced the campaign for a month, to end on 20 July. Since the time was reduced, I've raised the priority back to 'normal' and also removed the % of views limit. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 22:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

[Immediate action needed] Removal of WMFR_CA_publicdomain_fr from Centralnotice

Hello,

This campaign was created by Benoit Rochon without consensus. This was already masked on french wikipedia by using local CSS styles. Many people are now asking for deletion of this banner [16].

Thanks. --Mattho69 (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Having it hidden on the major affected project is such a big deal. I've temporarly disabled the notice waiting for further clarifications.--Vituzzu (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Vituzzu : are you sure that you have disabled the banner? According to Jules the banner is still visible on Wikimedia Commons and on Special:CentralNotice the campaign is still enabled. Thx. --Mattho69 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I've disabled the banner. —MarcoAurelio 21:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, it was still active on all projects (Wikipedia, Meta, Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikivoyage, etc.), even English Wikipedia if you were using French interface with a French IP. Akeron (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
No problem. It was "WMFR_CA_publicdomain_fr" which was active. Please note that it takes up to 10/15 minutes for the banners to appear/dissapear from the interfaces. Clearing the caché may also work, but as far as CentralNotice is concerned, the campaing isn't active anymore. —MarcoAurelio 21:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Weird, I was pretty sure I disabled this notice. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for MassMessage Sender role

Hi, I would like to get access for MassMessage Sender role. I am part of the organizing team for WikiConference India 2016. This access will help us reach out to registered volunteers in Meta and across various Indian language Wikimedia projects. Thanks.--Ravi (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Done temporary granted for reaching out to registered volunteers. Please let us know when your done with sending out. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2016-06&oldid=15754442"