1,756
edits
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki: Difference between revisions
→Culture
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 39: | 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" 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 | 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. | ||
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. | 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. | ||
Dissident views on some topics are considered so disruptive that, even though they are on-topic for Meta-Wiki given its stated mission, they cannot be expressed. The rationale behind disallowing the wisdom of suppressing these views from being openly debated or even challenged is that this too would be contentious. Therefore, the meta-discussion, and meta-meta-discussions, and so on, are suppressed as well. There is no equivalent to the [[wikipedia:previous question|previous question]] or [[wikipedia:objection to the consideration of the question|objection to the consideration of the question]] that would allow the community to vote on a matter without discussion. | |||
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] | ||