83,675
edits
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki: Difference between revisions
m
→Culture: better red link
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) (stats update) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
A lot of high-level [[:Category:Wikimedia Foundation people|Wikimedia Foundation staff members, stewards, global sysops]], etc., frequent Meta-Wiki. Many of them use it as their 'home base', and ask that [[user]]s on other projects contact them on Meta-Wiki. As a result of these users being so readily accessible on-wiki, and rubbing shoulders now and then with other Meta-Wiki users in the course of carrying out their duties, participating in the global wiki-governance aspects of Meta-Wiki, and responding to communications; other Meta-Wiki users tend to become at least superficially acquainted with them within the [[wikisphere]]. Accordingly, disputes that occur on Meta-Wiki often quickly get escalated to the highest levels of WMF, with complaints being posted on those [[WikiIndex:Talk Pages for Wiki People|users' talk pages]], which would not be the case on other wikis. Thus, it is fairly common to see, for example, attempts to drag high ranking Wikimedia [[:Category:Law|legal]] counsel into conflicts that would, on another wiki, be settled at a much lower level. | A lot of high-level [[:Category:Wikimedia Foundation people|Wikimedia Foundation staff members, stewards, global sysops]], etc., frequent Meta-Wiki. Many of them use it as their 'home base', and ask that [[user]]s on other projects contact them on Meta-Wiki. As a result of these users being so readily accessible on-wiki, and rubbing shoulders now and then with other Meta-Wiki users in the course of carrying out their duties, participating in the global wiki-governance aspects of Meta-Wiki, and responding to communications; other Meta-Wiki users tend to become at least superficially acquainted with them within the [[wikisphere]]. Accordingly, disputes that occur on Meta-Wiki often quickly get escalated to the highest levels of WMF, with complaints being posted on those [[WikiIndex:Talk Pages for Wiki People|users' talk pages]], which would not be the case on other wikis. Thus, it is fairly common to see, for example, attempts to drag high ranking Wikimedia [[:Category:Law|legal]] counsel into conflicts that would, on another wiki, be settled at a much lower level. | ||
It is fairly easy to get [[block]]ed or banned from Meta-Wiki; often with little explanation, or with a vague and/or misleading explanation. Usually, the blocks for common [[vandal]]ism are for lengthier periods than would be the case on [[English Wikipedia]]. Although there is no [[Arbitration Committee]] (ArbComm); 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 [[block]]ed or [[Banning|banned]] from Meta-Wiki; often with little explanation, or with a vague and / or misleading explanation. Usually, the blocks for common [[vandal]]ism are for lengthier periods than would be the case on [[English Wikipedia]]. Although there is no [[Wikipedia Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] (ArbComm); 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-Wiki [[sysop]]s 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-Wiki, so users are more likely to get blocked. The equivalent of an administrators' noticeboard incidents page is '[[MetaWiki:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat|Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat]]' (RFH). As is the case on | As is the case on [[MediaWiki.org]], Meta-Wiki [[sysop]]s 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-Wiki, so users are more likely to get blocked. The equivalent of an administrators' noticeboard incidents page is '[[MetaWiki:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat|Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat]]' (RFH). As is the case on English Wikipedia, repeated bickering tends to result in warnings and / or eventual blocks for the participants. | ||
Essentially, the procedure on Meta-Wiki, as on many other wikis, is that if a [[sysop]] warns a user that a behaviour he is engaging in must stop, then he can either (1) stop, (2) communicate with other sysops through non-public channels (e.g. e-mail) 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 very risky, because it can be viewed as disruptive and disrespectful, 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-Wiki, as on many other wikis, is that if a [[sysop]] warns a user that a behaviour he is engaging in must stop, then he can either (1) stop, (2) communicate with other sysops through non-public channels (e.g. e-mail, IRC) 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 very risky, because it can be viewed as disruptive and disrespectful, 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 [[:Category:Wiki Topic|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 [[wp:Previous question|previous question]] or [[wp: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. | Dissident views on some [[:Category:Wiki Topic|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 [[wp:Previous question|previous question]] or [[wp: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. | ||