1,756
edits
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) |
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
The third purpose, essays, has not actually resulted in a large number of essays; only something in the low triple digits.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Essays] Likewise, there are not many issues pages.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Issues] Meta is specifically excluded from the list of projects that adhere to a neutral point of view.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view] Although theoretically,[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Inclusion_policy] Meta is a place for debate and advocacy concerning controversial policies and practices, behaving in too opinionated of a manner concerning contentious issues has resulted in blocks and bans. | The third purpose, essays, has not actually resulted in a large number of essays; only something in the low triple digits.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Essays] Likewise, there are not many issues pages.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Issues] Meta is specifically excluded from the list of projects that adhere to a neutral point of view.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view] Although theoretically,[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Inclusion_policy] Meta is a place for debate and advocacy concerning controversial policies and practices, behaving in too opinionated of a manner concerning contentious issues has resulted in blocks and bans. | ||
Elections of Wikimedia board members,[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections] stewards,[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Elections] global sysops,[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_sysop_permissions] etc. occur at Meta-Wiki, and sometimes users of all projects are invited to comment on proposed global policies at Meta. Sometimes users make complaints about what is going on at other projects, if it appears that the sysops of those projects have run amok, and that intervention from stewards may be necessary. This is usually only allowed when the projects are relatively small and it is clear that the sysops are going against the will of the community; otherwise, the argument will be raised the Meta is not an appeals court.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_Meta_is_not] The Requests for Comment page is a venue for these types of complaints, as well as debate on a wide variety of other matters, such as policy; proposals for what to do with wikis that are in incubation or that are proposed to be brought under the Wikimedia umbrella; and requests for global bans.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment] | Elections of Wikimedia board members,[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections] stewards,[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Elections] global sysops,[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_sysop_permissions] etc. occur at Meta-Wiki, and sometimes users of all projects are invited to comment on proposed global policies at Meta. Sometimes users make complaints about what is going on at other projects, if it appears that the sysops of those projects have run amok, and that intervention from stewards may be necessary. This is usually only allowed when the projects are relatively small and it is clear that the sysops are going against the will of the community; otherwise, the argument will be raised the Meta is not an appeals court.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_Meta_is_not] The Requests for Comment page is a venue for these types of complaints, as well as debate on a wide variety of other matters, such as policy; proposals for what to do with wikis that are in incubation or that are proposed to be brought under the Wikimedia umbrella; and requests for global bans.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment] | ||
| Line 41: | Line 39: | ||
It is fairly easy to get blocked or banned from Meta, often with little explanation or with a vague and/or misleading explanation. Usually the blocks for common vandalism are for lengthier periods than would be the case on Wikipedia. Although there is no Arbitration Committee, the goings-on at Meta are not completely transparent because there is a great deal of [[revision deletion]] that occurs there. | It is fairly easy to get blocked or banned from Meta, often with little explanation or with a vague and/or misleading explanation. Usually the blocks for common vandalism are for lengthier periods than would be the case on Wikipedia. Although there is no Arbitration Committee, the goings-on at Meta are not completely transparent because there is a great deal of [[revision deletion]] that occurs there. | ||
As is the case on MediaWiki.org, Meta sysops typically have free rein to do what they wish, as the community does not exercise much oversight over them. The difference is that there is more likelihood of disputes because of the controversial subject matter (policies, etc.) that are discussed at Meta, so users are more likely to get blocked. The equivalent of an administrators' noticeboard incidents page is "Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat".[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat] As is the case on Wikipedia, repeated bickering tends to result in warnings and/or eventual blocks for the participants, rather than an attempt to sort out who is at fault. | As is the case on MediaWiki.org, Meta sysops typically have free rein to do what they wish, as the community does not exercise much oversight over them. The difference is that there is more likelihood of disputes because of the controversial subject matter (policies, etc.) that are discussed at Meta, so users are more likely to get blocked. The equivalent of an administrators' noticeboard incidents page is "Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat" or RFH.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat] As is the case on Wikipedia, repeated bickering tends to result in warnings and/or eventual blocks for the participants, rather than an attempt to sort out who is at fault. | ||
Essentially, the procedure on Meta, as on many other wikis, is that if a sysop warns a user that a behavior he is engaging in must stop, then he can either (1) stop, (2) communicate with other sysops through non-public channels (e.g. email) and try to get those sysops to warn the other sysop to back off, or (3) take the matter to a public forum for community input. However, the third option is risky because it can be viewed as disruptive and result in blocks or bans. If the sysop blocks the user for such "disruption", and no other sysop is willing to reverse the block, then the block stands, unless someone else who is not yet blocked takes the matter to a public forum such as RFH and gets the community to reverse the decision. | |||
There are not many rules governing conduct, so it is left up to sysops to make their own judgments of what is appropriate or inappropriate. Specifically, there are only seven policies applicable to Meta in particular.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Policies_and_guidelines] Meta has an "anti 'snowball' policy" that prohibits speedy closure of discussions at this project, but in practice sysops can and do close discussions summarily and implement what they think is best sometimes.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Snowball] | There are not many rules governing conduct, so it is left up to sysops to make their own judgments of what is appropriate or inappropriate. Specifically, there are only seven policies applicable to Meta in particular.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Policies_and_guidelines] Meta has an "anti 'snowball' policy" that prohibits speedy closure of discussions at this project, but in practice sysops can and do close discussions summarily and implement what they think is best sometimes.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Snowball] | ||