Office actions

[James Hare]

He may have been the first permabanned user to become elected to the Board
of Trustees!

(Although his ban was lifted... I was talking about the nasty office issue.)

On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax@...> wrote:

>
> James Hare wrote:
> > Yes. We all know what happened to Erik Moeller.
> >
>
> ... he got elected to the Board?
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Parker Peters]

> On 12/15/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster@...> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/15/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 15/12/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain@...> wrote:
> > > > On 12/15/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia@...> wrote:
> > > > > On 14/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven@...> wrote:
> > > > > > I suspect in many circumstances Danny will not be able to
> respond
> > to
> > > > > > such questions, since he doesn't want an official decision of
> the
> > > > > > Foundation on record.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought this project was founded on accountability.
> > > >
> > > > Editors are accountable for their own actions.
> > > >
> > > > The Foundation rightly does not want to be accountable for other
> > > > people's actions.
> > >
> > > I have no idea where you got the idea that I was asking the Foundation
> > > to be responsible for other people's actions. I'll quote you again the
> > > text (quoted above) that I was replying to:
> > >
> > > "Danny... doesn't want an official decision of the Foundation on
> > record."
> > >
> > > In this case, it was an "office action", which appears to generally
> > > equate to "putting stuff in the memory hole".
> > >
> > > Is it Foundation policy to hide official decisions of the Foundation?
> > > Or is it Danny policy? Either way, it appears that the management of
> > > this project is asymptotically approaching that of the Open[sic]
> > > Directory Project.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Earle Martin
> >
> >
> > Given that the risk of violating an Office action is Danny having you
> > banned/desysopped/draped in sackcloth and ashes, I think that the
> > boundaries
> > of Office actions need to be spelled out pretty clearly. Hiding them is
> > not
> > good for the project.
> >
> > Parker
> > ____

>On 12/15/06, James Hare <messedrocker@...> wrote:Yes. We all know
what happened to Erik Moeller.
>
>And now let's not speak of that incident ever again.

James,

to "not speak of something again" isn't helpful either. Right or wrong,
eventually cleared up or not, that incident seems entirely relevant to the
questions being asked today, because another admin is trying - in very good
faith - to get the answers he needs so that he doesn't step on the toes of
OFFICE.

If those answers aren't provided, if OFFICE isn't willing to tell an
administrator what he needs to know, or even to give him a "well we can't
say 100% but we know you are acting in good faith so if we have to undo
something you do, no hard feelings/punishment will be coming your way", then
we've got a pretty big problem on our hands.

Parker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:46:11 -0500, Jimmy Wales <jwales@...>
wrote:

>I am unsure exactly how to redesign the process so that we get the good
>outcome more often, and the bad outcome less often.

Stating the case here has already helped.  We should work on
[[WP:OFFICE]] to ensure that it reflects this aim.  I am very happy to
hear that we should be working to fix up these articles, since it is
often the case that several editors are motivated to do just that.

Sometimes it's not quite so simple (as with Gregory Lauder-Frost,
whose friends made baseless claims in respect of our ability to
document his verifiable conviction for fraud, a notable and
significant fact by any rational assessment).

In this case, hopefully it is simple.  We have impeccable sources for
a number of significant facts which bear directly on why this place
was ever considered notable in the first place.  We can work on those,
applying the highest standards of care.  

Hopefully the evidence of this care, through showing our working, will
be sufficient to ward off trouble, but there is still the niggling
concern that fiddling with OFFICEd articles has in the past led to
summary disciplinary actions.  I'd really rather that didn't happen to
me.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Angela-5]

On 12/16/06, James Hare <messedrocker@...> wrote:

> He may have been the first permabanned user to become elected to the Board
> of Trustees!

Erik wasn't exactly "permabanned", and neither was he the first
trustee to be elected after being blocked. I wonder how many people
remember that Jimmy blocked an account Anthere was using many years
ago. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mediator&diff=1570530&oldid=1569877

Angela
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[James Hare]

I may be senior to many Wikipedians but I wasn't around in the stone ages!
:)

On 12/15/06, Angela <beesley@...> wrote:

>
> On 12/16/06, James Hare <messedrocker@...> wrote:
>
> > He may have been the first permabanned user to become elected to the
> Board
> > of Trustees!
>
> Erik wasn't exactly "permabanned", and neither was he the first
> trustee to be elected after being blocked. I wonder how many people
> remember that Jimmy blocked an account Anthere was using many years
> ago. :)
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mediator&diff=1570530&oldid=1569877
>
> Angela
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jimmy Wales]

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

> Earle Martin wrote:
>> In this case, it was an "office action", which appears to generally
>> equate to "putting stuff in the memory hole".
>>
>> Is it Foundation policy to hide official decisions of the Foundation?
>> Or is it Danny policy? Either way, it appears that the management of
>> this project is asymptotically approaching that of the Open[sic]
>> Directory Project.
>>
>
> That's grounds for moderation, citizen.

I don't think Earle needs to be put on moderation, I think Earle needs a
big hug.

Earle, I can tell you that nothing is approaching anything like the Open
Directory Project.  Is there a problem that WP:OFFICE articles have
tended to sit there in the "wrong version" for too long, and that good
editors are unsure how to proceed?

Absolutely.

But that's a problem that everyone wants to fix in an open, transparent,
and loving way.  It is not very helpful to accuse Danny or the
Foundation of any sort of "memory hole" policies or of becoming closed
like the ODP.

Please, let's all always move forward by assuming good faith.  Good
people, trying to do a good thing for the world, balancing many complex
and competing concerns.  It's a complex mess.  That's because the world
is a complex mess.  We're all doing our best here.

--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jimmy Wales]

James Hare wrote:
> Yes. We all know what happened to Erik Moeller.
>
> And now let's not speak of that incident ever again.

Exactly.  Drummed from the project in shame, never to be heard from
again. ;-)

(In case anyone reading this doesn't get this obscure reference, there
was an unfortunate incident which was quickly cleared up regarding
WP:OFFICE and some confusions surrounding it, and Erik is of course
still a valued member of the community and in fact a member of the board.)

The point is, mistakes are made, errors are reversible, assuming good
faith and trying to listen to each other is always better than the
alternatives.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jimmy Wales]

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Given the number of people who don't understand or don't care that what
> happens on Wikipedia can have real-world implications, a suitable degree
> of "HERE BE DRAGONS" /is/ needed.

So I agree with you about that... to a degree.

The problem is that far too often, when something is tagged WP:OFFICE it
just sits there, for months, with everyone scared to do anything.  This
is the opposite of what is intended.

--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Alphax (Wikipedia email)]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>> Given the number of people who don't understand or don't care that what
>> happens on Wikipedia can have real-world implications, a suitable degree
>> of "HERE BE DRAGONS" /is/ needed.
>
> So I agree with you about that... to a degree.
>
> The problem is that far too often, when something is tagged WP:OFFICE it
> just sits there, for months, with everyone scared to do anything.  This
> is the opposite of what is intended.
>

More carrot, less stick?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jimmy Wales]

Go forward, Guy, with my blessing and protection.

But this really needs a longer term solution, and I agree with you that
discussing it here (even with the unnecessary flaming around the edges
of the discussion) seems helpful in sorting through this.

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:46:11 -0500, Jimmy Wales <jwales@...>
> wrote:
>
>> I am unsure exactly how to redesign the process so that we get the good
>> outcome more often, and the bad outcome less often.
>
> Stating the case here has already helped.  We should work on
> [[WP:OFFICE]] to ensure that it reflects this aim.  I am very happy to
> hear that we should be working to fix up these articles, since it is
> often the case that several editors are motivated to do just that.
>
> Sometimes it's not quite so simple (as with Gregory Lauder-Frost,
> whose friends made baseless claims in respect of our ability to
> document his verifiable conviction for fraud, a notable and
> significant fact by any rational assessment).
>
> In this case, hopefully it is simple.  We have impeccable sources for
> a number of significant facts which bear directly on why this place
> was ever considered notable in the first place.  We can work on those,
> applying the highest standards of care.  
>
> Hopefully the evidence of this care, through showing our working, will
> be sufficient to ward off trouble, but there is still the niggling
> concern that fiddling with OFFICEd articles has in the past led to
> summary disciplinary actions.  I'd really rather that didn't happen to
> me.
>
> Guy (JzG)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jimmy Wales]

Angela wrote:

> On 12/16/06, James Hare <messedrocker@...> wrote:
>
>> He may have been the first permabanned user to become elected to the Board
>> of Trustees!
>
> Erik wasn't exactly "permabanned", and neither was he the first
> trustee to be elected after being blocked. I wonder how many people
> remember that Jimmy blocked an account Anthere was using many years
> ago. :)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mediator&diff=1570530&oldid=1569877

Did you know that this is, as far as I can remember, the first time I
ever knew that account was being used by Anthere? :)

--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Guettarda]

On 12/15/06, James Hare <messedrocker@...> wrote:
>
> I may be senior to many Wikipedians but I wasn't around in the stone ages!
> :)


Interesting.  I thought everyone newer than me was a rank newbie... (yeah, I
know, I've been here a whole 3 months longer than you).

On 12/15/06, Angela <beesley@...> wrote:

> >
> > On 12/16/06, James Hare <messedrocker@...> wrote:
> >
> > > He may have been the first permabanned user to become elected to the
> > Board
> > > of Trustees!
> >
> > Erik wasn't exactly "permabanned", and neither was he the first
> > trustee to be elected after being blocked. I wonder how many people
> > remember that Jimmy blocked an account Anthere was using many years
> > ago. :)
> >
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mediator&diff=1570530&oldid=1569877
> >
> > Angela
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@...
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Parker Peters]

On 12/15/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@...> wrote:

>
> James Hare wrote:
> > Yes. We all know what happened to Erik Moeller.
> >
> > And now let's not speak of that incident ever again.
>
> Exactly.  Drummed from the project in shame, never to be heard from
> again. ;-)
>
> (In case anyone reading this doesn't get this obscure reference, there
> was an unfortunate incident which was quickly cleared up regarding
> WP:OFFICE and some confusions surrounding it, and Erik is of course
> still a valued member of the community and in fact a member of the board.)
>
> The point is, mistakes are made, errors are reversible, assuming good
> faith and trying to listen to each other is always better than the
> alternatives.
>

Precisely, Jimbo.

And assuming good faith, and asking what the boundaries are before doing
something when OFFICE is potentially involved, would seem to be a good
course of action, would it not?

Parker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sam Korn]

On 12/15/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@...> wrote:
> But this really needs a longer term solution, and I agree with you that
> discussing it here (even with the unnecessary flaming around the edges
> of the discussion) seems helpful in sorting through this.

And your post further up this thread will, I think, be invaluable in
moving towards that long-term solution in helping people understand
exactly how this should be managed.

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sam Korn]

On 12/15/06, Guettarda <guettarda@...> wrote:
> Interesting.  I thought everyone newer than me was a rank newbie... (yeah, I
> know, I've been here a whole 3 months longer than you).

Doesn't everyone think that?

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

On 12/15/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@...> wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > This is all fine, but Office actions should not be a technique for
> > sweeping issues under the rug indefinitely.
>
> I agree completely.  The message of WP:OFFICE should not be "hands OFF"
> but "hands ON".
>
> The core idea is that the process SHOULD work like this:
>
> 1. A hysterical phone call comes in to the office.  There might or might
> not be legal threats.  The hysteria might or might not be justified.
> But someone is sad, and Wikipedia is not here to make people sad.  So we
> want to respond in a helpful and loving way.
>

Problem is that it's used for more than that (Image:Crosstar.png for
example which I wish someone would oversite away and have done with)

> 2. The article is stubbed and tagged as WP:OFFICE.  This is a message to
> good editors: "Please help us.  This article is making someone unhappy.
>   We want to make sure that it is a thoughtful, fair, neutral article.
> We need GOOD editors to pay attention to it, and help us make it good."
>

That would be cleanup and the wait is about 6 months. In the meantime
we have [[Elevator music]].

> I would recommend protection or semi-protection at this point, but with
> the idea that even if protected admins are (as compared to normal
> protection) actually encouraged to come help with the article.
>

Admins have rather a lot of other things to do. Admin only editing of
articles does not strike me as a good idea. In theory at least when it
comes to editing we are all equal.

> 3.  After some reasonable period of time, hopefully 24 hours, but
> perhaps as long as a week, the article has become a shining beauty.  The
> subject of the biography (and really, these are most often biographies)
> is either made happy (because a horrible error was corrected, a troll
> was vanquished, or whatever) or made at least satisfied (the story of
> the negative thing he or she did once is now placed in appropriate
> context, properly cited, including citations to his or her own response
> and defense).
>
> 4. Joy.
>

This assumes the person complaining is ah reasonable.


> Perhaps young and excitable Wikipedia contributors think that the point
> of the exercise is to SHOW PEOPLE that you CAN'T PUSH WIKIPEDIA AROUND,
> and go out to try to dig up well-cited dirt on the person, creating an
> even more horribly bad and biased article than we started with, forcing
> us to start all over again.
>

I don't think it is a good idea to get into the habit of removing well
cited information

> Perhaps good contributors who respect WP:OFFICE think "Gee, trouble
> here, I will just stay out of the way"... and then nothing happens.
>

Can you blame them?

> Perhaps no one really cares in the first place, such that if the article
> has been out-of-process speedied, it would have slipped through the cracks.

People are supriseingly good at picking up impropper speedies

> I am unsure exactly how to redesign the process so that we get the good
> outcome more often, and the bad outcome less often.

Outline the problem on the talk page as see if we can get the person
complaining to suggest any souces that could be useful.


> An example of the good outcome can be seen at [[Ron Jeremy]], which was
> NOT subject WP:OFFICE, but rather subject to a controversial blanking by
> an ordinary editor.  It has become an excellent article which continues
> to improve, because good editors are keeping unsourced cruft out of the
> article completely.


Try [[Jack Thompson (attorney)]] I suspect the subject still has
issues with the article but at least it now covers more of his life
than his campains against certian types of computer games.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:18:43 +0000, geni <geniice@...> wrote:

>Admins have rather a lot of other things to do. Admin only editing of
>articles does not strike me as a good idea. In theory at least when it
>comes to editing we are all equal.

I'm not sure I agree here.  There is a bar to entry for admins, and it
is reasonable to require, at least in the short term, that we allow
editing only by trusted individuals.  Protection is a blunt instrument
and certainly excludes many highly trustworthy individuals, but it
does exclude most of those likely to perpetuate the problem. Hopefully
if the clarification Jimbo gave is taken to heart, the protection
period can be reduced as we fix the articles.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

On 12/15/06, Sam Korn <smoddy@...> wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Guettarda <guettarda@...> wrote:
> > Interesting.  I thought everyone newer than me was a rank newbie... (yeah, I
> > know, I've been here a whole 3 months longer than you).
>
> Doesn't everyone think that?
>

After a while you adjust that to everyone who joined after you made it to admin.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Parker Peters]

On 12/15/06, geni <geniice@...> wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Try [[Jack Thompson (attorney)]] I suspect the subject still has
> issues with the article but at least it now covers more of his life
> than his campains against certian types of computer games.
> --
> geni



The subject is also an overly litigious bag of hot air...

Parker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

> > I would recommend protection or semi-protection at this point, but with
> > the idea that even if protected admins are (as compared to normal
> > protection) actually encouraged to come help with the article.
> >
>
> Admins have rather a lot of other things to do. Admin only editing of
> articles does not strike me as a good idea. In theory at least when it
> comes to editing we are all equal.

Jimbo said protection *or semi-protection*. Perhaps more OFFICE
articles should be semi-protected, rather than protected.

> I don't think it is a good idea to get into the habit of removing well
> cited information

Indeed. A balanced article isn't one that has the same number of good
points as bad points. It's one that has a ratio of good points to bad
points that accurately represents how good/bad the subject is (yes,
it's not our job to decide is someone is a good person or not, but we
don't need to, if we do our research properly and cite everything
properly, we'll get the right ratio without having to decide what that
ratio is). An article on a convicted murderer is going to have mainly
bad points, that's perfectly balanced. An article on an
uncontroversial charity worker will have mainly good points, that's
perfectly balanced.

If there are far more bad points than good points in an article, and
the bad points are all well cited, then there are two possibilities.
Either the subject is simply bad, in which case the article is fine,
or the article is missing some good points, in which case they should
be added. I can't see any reason for a well cited bad point to be
removed.

> > Perhaps good contributors who respect WP:OFFICE think "Gee, trouble
> > here, I will just stay out of the way"... and then nothing happens.
> >
>
> Can you blame them?

Especially not when [[WP:OFFICE]] says:

"The following pages are currently under full Office protection and
full page protection and must not be edited by anyone not explicitly
authorised to do so."

>From following this thread, I think what that means is the article
should be edited on a temporary subpage and then get explicit
authorisation to move the subpage to the main page. If that's what's
intended, it should be made clearer.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l