7 ms·

The relevant bit is the last two comments by KalHolmann. Attempts to discuss Cross' behavior in the relevant, public boards were closed within minutes of each p

The relevant bit is the last two comments by KalHolmann. Attempts to discuss Cross' behavior in the relevant, public boards were closed within minutes of each posting with unsatisfactory explanations. See [0] for example. Not a wikipedian, but from my nerdish poking around and learning about how wikipedia works, it was my impression that these boards are supposed to be public forums to openly discuss issues, in line with its spirit of open collaboration. The fact that editors closed it immediately is evidence that, as KalHolmann says, there is circling of wagons going on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest...

tptacek 8y ago
I see an admin with no apparent connection to this subject[0]: (1) instructing KalHolmann not to canvass (this is one of WP's older rules and comes up all the time in AfD, where people will canvass WP and Twitter to get votes to keep marginal articles) (2) backing out KalHolmann's canvassing comments (3) responding to KalHolmann's question about where to direct his concern by telling him to take it to ANI (4) advising against him taking it to the "COI Noticeboard" (I'm not sure I know what that even is but I guess I can guess and I'm not surprised it exists) (5) after KalHolmann takes it there anyways and complains about the outcome, telling him again to take it to ANI. None of this seems bad to me; it seems like a WP admin going out of their way to be helpful (in a WP'ian sort of way) and getting slagged for it on HN. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/NeilN&offset=&limit=500&target=NeilN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contribut...
- noobermin 8y ago
  NeilN isn't the abusive or sinister one here. It is the fact that KalHolmann's posts were closed on the boards that is the issue.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Ok, look at the admin who closed it --- and their talk page, where they talk more about the reason they closed the COI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG Also no apparent connection to the topic. There over a thousand admins on Wikipedia; most of them don't know or have any connection to each other.
    - noobermin 8y ago
      I'm confused about your point, but am I correct in you're trying to prove there is no cabal by pointing out the replies from individual admins? It's possible that it's a coincidence that these events are occurring, but to outsiders, it looks like circling the wagons. Regarding JzG's reply, it sounds a little disingenuous when they claim Cross is "editing with an opinion" and those bringing COI up are "people with a vested interest." I probably believe those against him have a vested interest, but that Cross who openly admitted to having a feud with the pages of people he edits (TFA's point) is the one operating with acceptable behavior is okay is strange. It seems like me the best way to address the warring is just to openly discuss it.
- k1m 8y ago
  You misssed the fact that he took it to ANI and was shut down there too very quickly. Frustrated with the fact that no attempt was made to deal with the matter, he, quite sensibly, concludes that it appears they are trying to protect Cross. I should also add that the people targeted by Cross all have a fairly large audiences on Twitter, and have been vocal about this issue. Jimmy Wales is aware (he's tweeted to them, as I say in another comment, but to dismiss the matter). I, too, would conclude they were trying to protect him if I was met with that kind of response.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Who is "they" and why is it sensible that they're "protecting" some random WP admin? What seems more likely to me is that people have very legitimate concerns about Cross's POV, but aren't following WP norms in raising those concerns, and are getting shut down as a result. That's an expected outcome, not a sign of something nefarious happening.
    - netsharc 8y ago
      Oh wow, so they don't follow the bureaucracy, so their concerns are shut down, until what? Until they follow the bureaucracy? If I can take a stab at guessing what is happening, the Wikipedia admins probably feel like a super-active member is one of their own, and he/she is being attacked by "outsiders", so what they're doing is defending him with made-up reasons to fool themselves that what they're doing is just. A bit like US police, they're meant to be a part of the community and serve them, but after demonstrations against them because a few members did terrible things, they think they're under attack and their response is to protect their own and treat the public as the aggressive enemy.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Yes. I understand that lots of people on HN hate that, but, yes. Wikipedia is an incredibly complicated and intricate project with its own objectives and norms. It has been manifestly successful; it is one of the great achievements of the Internet to date. People arguing to override those norms have a heavy burden to meet. One of the reasons for those norms is that on controversial issues, everybody can marshal a plausible argument. WP's processes try to make sure that admins can make procedural rather than substantive decisions to resolve conflicts. It's reasonable to have a couple thousand people who understand a process. It's not reasonable to expect a couple thousand people to be authoritative for all the substantive controversies litigated on the encyclopedia. Another reason is that the norms are interdependent. For instance: many of the rest of WP's processes don't work without the "no canvassing" rule. Admins and 'crats can't evaluate an argument if it's flooded with partisan complaints. Admin decisions aren't votes.
- mjw1007 8y ago
  Said admin also wrote «As long as you don't request community-imposed sanctions posting at WP:COIN is fine.», and I observe that the KaiHolmann's posting there did not request community-imposed sanctions.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    It was fine, it just didn't have the effect KalHolmann wanted.
- wybiral 8y ago
  That's what I took from it too. But I've noticed an increasingly growing segment of HN commenters wearing fashionable hats made of foil.
bhouston 8y ago
Wikipedia does tend to protect long time contributors and not have to outside sources that do not like an article. There is a meta game in Wikipedia that if you do small changes and write justifications in wikilawyer speak and you discredit your opponents in the right fashion you can win even if you are technically wrong. It is a beuruaucracy and some can play the game well.
- Retric 8y ago
  It's got very little to due with length of contribution it's pure inner circle behavior.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Then it's a pretty big "inner circle".
    - Retric 8y ago
      From everyone that uses Wikipedia a subset has made an edit. And within that subset an even smaller fraction is part of the inner circle that has some ideas about Wikipedia's culture. The Chinese Communist Party is vast, but it still qualifies as an inner circle, even though that onion has plenty of layers.
    - saghm 8y ago
      "Inner" doesn't mean "small", it just means "inside a larger one"
- komali2 8y ago
  I've noticed the same behavior on Reddit, hackernews, Tumblr, and lesswrong. As long as you say it in the right cadence for the given forum, you can be completely off base and be getting upvotes. I try to be aware of it but I see myself mindlessly agreeing with someone just because they took the superior tone for the given format.
  - 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

I see an admin with no apparent connection to this subject[0]: (1) instructing KalHolmann not to canvass (this is one of WP's older rules and comes up all the time in AfD, where people will canvass WP and Twitter to get votes to keep marginal articles) (2) backing out KalHolmann's canvassing comments (3) responding to KalHolmann's question about where to direct his concern by telling him to take it to ANI (4) advising against him taking it to the "COI Noticeboard" (I'm not sure I know what that even is but I guess I can guess and I'm not surprised it exists) (5) after KalHolmann takes it there anyways and complains about the outcome, telling him again to take it to ANI. None of this seems bad to me; it seems like a WP admin going out of their way to be helpful (in a WP'ian sort of way) and getting slagged for it on HN. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/NeilN&offset=&limit=500&target=NeilN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contribut...

noobermin 8y ago
NeilN isn't the abusive or sinister one here. It is the fact that KalHolmann's posts were closed on the boards that is the issue.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Ok, look at the admin who closed it --- and their talk page, where they talk more about the reason they closed the COI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG Also no apparent connection to the topic. There over a thousand admins on Wikipedia; most of them don't know or have any connection to each other.
  - noobermin 8y ago
    I'm confused about your point, but am I correct in you're trying to prove there is no cabal by pointing out the replies from individual admins? It's possible that it's a coincidence that these events are occurring, but to outsiders, it looks like circling the wagons. Regarding JzG's reply, it sounds a little disingenuous when they claim Cross is "editing with an opinion" and those bringing COI up are "people with a vested interest." I probably believe those against him have a vested interest, but that Cross who openly admitted to having a feud with the pages of people he edits (TFA's point) is the one operating with acceptable behavior is okay is strange. It seems like me the best way to address the warring is just to openly discuss it.
k1m 8y ago
You misssed the fact that he took it to ANI and was shut down there too very quickly. Frustrated with the fact that no attempt was made to deal with the matter, he, quite sensibly, concludes that it appears they are trying to protect Cross. I should also add that the people targeted by Cross all have a fairly large audiences on Twitter, and have been vocal about this issue. Jimmy Wales is aware (he's tweeted to them, as I say in another comment, but to dismiss the matter). I, too, would conclude they were trying to protect him if I was met with that kind of response.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Who is "they" and why is it sensible that they're "protecting" some random WP admin? What seems more likely to me is that people have very legitimate concerns about Cross's POV, but aren't following WP norms in raising those concerns, and are getting shut down as a result. That's an expected outcome, not a sign of something nefarious happening.
  - netsharc 8y ago
    Oh wow, so they don't follow the bureaucracy, so their concerns are shut down, until what? Until they follow the bureaucracy? If I can take a stab at guessing what is happening, the Wikipedia admins probably feel like a super-active member is one of their own, and he/she is being attacked by "outsiders", so what they're doing is defending him with made-up reasons to fool themselves that what they're doing is just. A bit like US police, they're meant to be a part of the community and serve them, but after demonstrations against them because a few members did terrible things, they think they're under attack and their response is to protect their own and treat the public as the aggressive enemy.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Yes. I understand that lots of people on HN hate that, but, yes. Wikipedia is an incredibly complicated and intricate project with its own objectives and norms. It has been manifestly successful; it is one of the great achievements of the Internet to date. People arguing to override those norms have a heavy burden to meet. One of the reasons for those norms is that on controversial issues, everybody can marshal a plausible argument. WP's processes try to make sure that admins can make procedural rather than substantive decisions to resolve conflicts. It's reasonable to have a couple thousand people who understand a process. It's not reasonable to expect a couple thousand people to be authoritative for all the substantive controversies litigated on the encyclopedia. Another reason is that the norms are interdependent. For instance: many of the rest of WP's processes don't work without the "no canvassing" rule. Admins and 'crats can't evaluate an argument if it's flooded with partisan complaints. Admin decisions aren't votes.
mjw1007 8y ago
Said admin also wrote «As long as you don't request community-imposed sanctions posting at WP:COIN is fine.», and I observe that the KaiHolmann's posting there did not request community-imposed sanctions.
- tptacek 8y ago
  It was fine, it just didn't have the effect KalHolmann wanted.
wybiral 8y ago
That's what I took from it too. But I've noticed an increasingly growing segment of HN commenters wearing fashionable hats made of foil.

bhouston 8y ago

Wikipedia does tend to protect long time contributors and not have to outside sources that do not like an article. There is a meta game in Wikipedia that if you do small changes and write justifications in wikilawyer speak and you discredit your opponents in the right fashion you can win even if you are technically wrong. It is a beuruaucracy and some can play the game well.

Retric 8y ago
It's got very little to due with length of contribution it's pure inner circle behavior.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Then it's a pretty big "inner circle".
  - Retric 8y ago
    From everyone that uses Wikipedia a subset has made an edit. And within that subset an even smaller fraction is part of the inner circle that has some ideas about Wikipedia's culture. The Chinese Communist Party is vast, but it still qualifies as an inner circle, even though that onion has plenty of layers.
  - saghm 8y ago
    "Inner" doesn't mean "small", it just means "inside a larger one"
komali2 8y ago
I've noticed the same behavior on Reddit, hackernews, Tumblr, and lesswrong. As long as you say it in the right cadence for the given forum, you can be completely off base and be getting upvotes. I try to be aware of it but I see myself mindlessly agreeing with someone just because they took the superior tone for the given format.
- 8y ago