Wikinews:IRC workshop/May 8, 2011


  • Improving PR amongst other Wikimedia projects. How do we recruit more users and make ourselves more attractive for prospective contributors?
  • How could we improve dispute resolution and does it even need to be improved?
  • In what ways can community drama and disputes be avoided?
  • Is the blocking policy too ambiguous?
  • How best can we identify and help our Australian students?
  • Does the speedy deletion policy need an overhaul?


[20:00] <MikemoralClone> <--Logging started-->
[20:00] <B-R-S> !off If this appears in the logs, the bot owes me a fiver.
[20:00] <pizero> I've been working out what's needed for an article wizard.
[20:00] <Mikemoral> Hello and welcome to the Wikinews Workshop today.
[20:00] <diegogrez> hi everyone
[20:00] <diegogrez> :P
[20:00] <dendodge> Cheese.
[20:00] <pizero> Indeed.
[20:00] <diegogrez> Pico
[20:00] <Mikemoral> Improving PR amongst other Wikimedia projects. How do we recruit more users and make ourselves more attractive for prospective contributors? ==> This is the first item on the agenda.
[20:01] == MC8 changed the topic of #wikinews-workshop to: Welcome to the Wikinews Workshop! How do we recruit more users and make ourselves more attractive for prospective contributors? How could we improve dispute resolution and does it even need to be improved? In what ways can community drama and disputes be avoided?
[20:01] <BarkingFish> !off that was from the last meeting, wasn't it?
[20:01] == wn-log [~wn-log@wikimedia/Microchip08/bot/Picochip08] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
[20:01] <Mikemoral> !off To the next item then?
[20:01] <diegogrez> fail
[20:01] <dendodge> BarkingFish: Yes, but the last meeting was über fail.
[20:01] <B-R-S> !off I believe so; yes
[20:01] <Gryllida> Er. The bot decided to quit on !off again.
[20:01] <BarkingFish> forget off
[20:01] <B-R-S> Yes, true, dendodge
[20:01] <BarkingFish> the bot's packed up
[20:02] <Gryllida> xD
[20:02] <pizero> Figures.
[20:02] * dendodge wonders why there are two Mikemorals.
[20:02] <Gryllida> Well, in any case, I skimmed previous chats available and am all ears.
[20:02] <BarkingFish> so we're gonna need a manual logger, right?
[20:02] <Mikemoral> dendodge: One mikemoral is logging.
[20:02] == MC8 changed the topic of #wikinews-workshop to: Welcome to the Wikinews Workshop! How could we improve dispute resolution and does it even need to be improved? In what ways can community drama and disputes be avoided?
[20:02] == wn-log [] has joined #wikinews-workshop
[20:02] == wn-log [] has quit [Changing host]
[20:02] == wn-log [~wn-log@wikimedia/Microchip08/bot/Picochip08] has joined #wikinews-workshop
[20:02] == mode/#wikinews-workshop [+v wn-log] by ChanServ
[20:02] <dendodge> Mikemoral: OIC. That makes sense.
[20:03] <pizero> Some users are going to dispute no matter what we do. Just pointing that out.
[20:03] <MC8> Item one on the actual agenda is "How could we improve dispute resolution and does it even need to be improved?"
[20:03] <MC8> However, we can streamline resolution so that it doesn't impact the project as much
[20:03] <BarkingFish> At the moment, dispute resolution is a bit of a free for all.
[20:04] <MC8> (I suppose that, if we wanted, we could move dispute resolution to its own namespace, and hide it from RC by default :P)
[20:04] <BarkingFish> I noticed that closing the DR between Brian and Mattisse. One starts, another argues, everyone throws in their 2¢ and it all goes to hell very quickly
[20:05] <MC8> A few parts of it are tagged historical, it's very ambiguous as to what to do, and I haven't a clue what arbcom actually does
[20:05] <B-R-S> And the final resolution was very simple
[20:05] <BarkingFish> stay the heck away from each other for a while :)
[20:05] <dendodge> My 2p were an attempt to resolve it and prevent a free-for-all...
[20:05] <Gryllida> I think that when filing dispute resolution, the candidate can be asked to explain what he did on each of the previous steps (e.g. using talk pages, etc.) first. It may make it more likely for people to follow those steps more closely and sometimes avoid the dispute
[20:05] <MC8> Gryllida: we could stick that into a preloaded template to try and force that to happen
[20:06] * Gryllida nods
[20:06] == MC8 changed the topic of #wikinews-workshop to: Welcome to the Wikinews Workshop! How could we improve dispute resolution and does it even need to be improved? In what ways can community drama and disputes be avoided? Is the blocking policy too ambiguous?
[20:06] <pizero> arbcom adjudicates when all else fails --- which means, at least, we have a panel of people who are motivated to keep all else from failing.
[20:06] <BarkingFish> We should also make it clear that escalating the dispute further by throwing insults and stuff around is not a great way to clear up a dispute.
[20:07] == wn-rc [bluegoblin@wikimedia/Microchip08/bot/Picochip08] has joined #wikinews-workshop
[20:07] == mode/#wikinews-workshop [+v wn-rc] by ChanServ
[20:07] == wn-log [~wn-log@wikimedia/Microchip08/bot/Picochip08] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
[20:07] <Gryllida> The dspute resolution page lists a few steps before the dispute itself, having some writing on how each of them was approached would help, I think.
[20:07] <BarkingFish> Arbcom is a last resort, and should be kept as such
[20:07] <Mikemoral> That, I think, most of us agree on.
[20:07] <pizero> BarkingFish: if that isn't clear to someone, will pointing it out help?
[20:08] <BarkingFish> pizero: If not, I don't know what to do.
[20:08] <pizero> Uhuh.
[20:09] <Gryllida> Pointing stuff out will surely help, because Wikinews communication style is vague enough for clarifications to be useful in any case.
[20:09] <B-R-S> Well, in the rare event somebody files at ArbCom ahead of themselves, ArbCom just shakes its collective head, so it's not that big an issue
[20:09] <BarkingFish> With argumentative users intent on causing as much hassle as possible, something needs to be laid down at the start of the process or it goes the way the recent one did.
[20:10] == diegogrez1 [~diegogrez@] has joined #wikinews-workshop
[20:10] <pizero> It's been suggested dispute resolution should be called something whose initials differ from Deletion Request. A small point, but it *would* be nice to avoid the collision.
[20:10] <Mikemoral> A dispute board perhaps, to guide the discussion on the DR page?
[20:10] <MC8> Mikemoral: too bureaucratic
[20:10] <pizero> ^
[20:11] <pizero> It's not really clear what filing a dispute resolution request is supposed to do, though.
[20:11] <Gryllida> It brings matter to community attention, similarly to Water cooler.
[20:11] <BarkingFish> well I'd say the name of it is a pretty good indication
[20:11] == diegogrez [~diegogrez@] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
[20:11] <Mikemoral> All it says is "If you feel that the dispute is getting out of hand and you have tried step one and two, then list it below so that other users can comment on the dispute."
[20:11] <diegogrez1> I don't see the point of having an arbitration committee, nobody ever does anything
[20:11] == diegogrez1 has changed nick to diegogrez
[20:12] <BarkingFish> it's supposed to request intervention to resolve a dispute, no?
[20:12] <dendodge> Do we need to assign a mediator to each dispute?
[20:12] <MC8> Gryllida:
[20:12] <BarkingFish> Could we find people willing to *act* as mediators?
[20:12] <Mikemoral> That's like what there do on WP with it's Mediator Cabel and Comittee
[20:12] <dendodge> As in, have a specific Wikinewsie (or group of Wikinewsies) - separate from ArbCom - who can *resolve* the dispute without and binding sanctions.
[20:12] <MC8> Our userbase is small; it's likely that the overlap would be great
[20:13] <dendodge> How about having a single arbitrator take each DR case, then?
[20:13] <dendodge> And they just mediate, without arbitrating.
[20:13] <B-R-S> Perhaps. The key issue is often communication. We need to sit down and get people to take a step back; Brian and Mattisse's final solution was to both step back and viola! 'tis fixed.
[20:13] <BarkingFish> for now
[20:14] <B-R-S> Well, yes.
[20:14] <dendodge> I don't think either of them is actually going to drop it.
[20:14] <dendodge> But hopefully I will be proved wrong.
[20:14] <pizero> Depends on Mattisse.
[20:14] <pizero> So, no.
[20:14] <pizero> (half a smiley.)
[20:14] <BarkingFish> pizero: it depends on them both.
[20:14] <Mikemoral> Like I said, Wikipedia does have w:WP:MedCom to help mediate disputes.
[20:14] <dendodge> Yes, it does.
[20:15] <BarkingFish> You know the old saying, "It takes 2 to argue"
[20:15] <dendodge> But our community is too small for a whole committee, IMO.
[20:15] <B-R-S> As MC8 says, community is small...
[20:15] <B-R-S> And now you too ;)
[20:15] <dendodge> I would, therefore, suggest having arbitrators take on mediation functions.
[20:15] <Mikemoral> We don't need a comittee, but we need a user willing to mediate.
[20:15] <Mikemoral> A single user would do.
[20:15] <BarkingFish> Mikemoral: The next question then is, how would you select a user suitable to mediate?
[20:16] <pizero> Doesn't WN:DR say a mediator can be requested?
[20:16] <Mikemoral> Yes.
[20:16] <dendodge> Since ArbCom only works once in a blue moon, having one arbitrator assigned to each case would probably work.
[20:16] <BarkingFish> And why should we take on someone else's problems when we have our own to deal with? (Playing devil's advocate)
[20:16] <dendodge> Then don't run for ArbCom...
[20:16] <BarkingFish> I wouldn't.
[20:17] <Mikemoral> The first question: Perhaps either an ArbCom member, or an uninvolved editor in good standing.
[20:17] <BarkingFish> It requires you to be identified, I think. And I refuse to identify to the foundation.
[20:17] <Mikemoral> ArbCom doesn't.
[20:17] <dendodge> BarkingFish: It doesn't, I don't think.
[20:17] <B-R-S> We have elections for Arbcom coming up, so we could make the change then if we really want.
[20:17] <dendodge> Only OS and CU do.
[20:17] <Mikemoral> That's WP, iirc.
[20:17] <BarkingFish> well what about privileged information they receive? Surely they couldn't do that, since it could be sensitive
[20:18] <Mikemoral> We don't have policy for that.
[20:18] <dendodge> It's never come up here...
[20:18] <pizero> There was a discussion on meta about arbcom members identifying.
[20:18] <pizero> Turns out on Russian wp they don't identify (iirc)
[20:18] <BarkingFish> it should be a norm, pizero - not a discussion. That should have been in place from the word go.
[20:18] <dendodge> There should probably be at least one arb who has identified.
[20:19] <dendodge> But I wouldn't make it a requirement for every member of the committee.
[20:19] <pizero> but it's assumed they're trusted by the community or they wouldn't have been put on arbcom.
[20:19] <Gryllida> MC8: it's ok, just needs to make it clear that WN:MA and WN:DISPUTE are different
[20:19] <BarkingFish> If arbcom can be party to sensitive information, any member likely to view such information should be identified. It's like CU and OS, the sensitive info thing still applies.
[20:19] <MC8> WN:MA is somewhat outdated, it's not been edited since 2007
[20:19] <Mikemoral> Cirt and bawolff are identified on ArbCom.
[20:19] == Wackywace [5e0c776b@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #wikinews-workshop
[20:20] <Gryllida> (you call it 'mediated dispute request' which resembles both) in this case we can merge them or link to Water cooler instead of MA at the dispute resolution page.
[20:20] <B-R-S> Hi wackywace
[20:20] <Gryllida> Hello Wackywace
[20:20] <Wackywace> Hello all!
[20:20] <dendodge> I would be willing to identify, but I'm too young, and thus would not be allowed to sit. Not that anyone would vote for me anyway :P
[20:21] <BarkingFish> How about going by the UN inspired name for Dispute Resolution.
[20:21] <dendodge> (I'm not saying I want to, I'm just saying that is the case)
[20:21] <BarkingFish> Conflict Interventionm
[20:21] <BarkingFish> *-m
[20:21] <Gryllida> I would be willing to identify after a few months of work at Wikinews at least. I wasn't very active so far.
[20:22] <pizero> This isn't public identification, it's private identification to wmf.
[20:22] <pizero> One can still be anonymous, as I understand it.
[20:22] <MC8> BarkingFish: I like that. It doesn't imply that all cases would be successful
[20:23] <BarkingFish> right
[20:23] <B-R-S> Yeah, that's right pizero
[20:23] <dendodge> Unfortunately, the Foundation only accepts you if you're over 18. Which is a bummer for us, since out user base is made up primarily of teenagers :P
[20:23] <dendodge> *our
[20:23] <pizero> Not exactly a problem for me.  :-)
[20:23] <Mikemoral> They take under 18s for OTRS, iirc.
[20:23] <dendodge> Do they?
[20:23] <B-R-S> " only accepts you if you're over 18" - for CU and OS.
[20:23] <B-R-S> We're talking ArbCom.
[20:24] <Wackywace> @Mikemoral Do they?
[20:24] <pizero> ... and ArbCom is treated as if they were all CUs.
[20:24] <dendodge> Ooh, "16 years of age or older"
[20:24] * dendodge volunteers for OTRS :)
[20:24] <Mikemoral>
[20:24] <Mikemoral> Yes.
[20:24] <BarkingFish> so, just to be clear, arbcom does, or does not require you to ID?
[20:25] <Mikemoral> does not on WN.
[20:25] <pizero> Depends on the project.
[20:25] <pizero> :-)
[20:25] <BarkingFish> ok, then I might stand.
[20:25] <dendodge> Out of interest, who here would be willing to stand?
[20:25] * B-R-S would never be supported for it
[20:26] * Mikemoral avoids drama, so no.
[20:26] <dendodge> I would if I expected to be supported, but I don't, so I probably won't unless we get very few nominations.
[20:26] <pizero> I'm probably willing to stand again, but it may depend on whether there's a "Questions for all candidates" page.
[20:27] <pizero> It really was a rough experience, last year.
[20:27] <BarkingFish> and if it's as rough this time, I'm out.
[20:27] <dendodge> I don't care about roughness. I'm a big boy. I can take it.
[20:27] <+wn-rc> User:Microchip08 changed Template:Dispute resolution filing/editnotice (+1439) creating
[20:27] <MC8> ^^
[20:28] <dendodge> I probably will stand just to increase the variety of choice, but I really don't expect to win.
[20:28] <pizero> Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee
[20:28] <B-R-S> There's a whole six seats, and very few regularly active who could/would do it, dendodge
[20:28] <MC8> Ahem. We're getting distracted.
[20:28] <Gryllida> MC8: You got the inclination right. That looks ok
[20:28] <BarkingFish> yes, we are.
[20:29] == Wackywace [5e0c776b@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[20:29] <Gryllida> (The edit notice)
[20:29] <+wn-rc> User:Microchip08 changed Template:Dispute resolution filing/editnotice (+2) +
[20:30] <pizero> Wikilink2_ isn't picking that up.
[20:30] <Mikemoral> Anything else to say on the DR process?
[20:30] <MC8> pizero: yes, it ignores wn-rc
[20:30] <BarkingFish> Template:Dispute resolution filing/editnotice
[20:30] == Wackywace [] has joined #wikinews-workshop
[20:31] <BarkingFish> i'm done.
[20:31] <BarkingFish> Mikemoral: ^
[20:31] * Gryllida too.
[20:31] <+wn-rc> User:Microchip08 changed Template:Dispute resolution filing/editnotice (+62) +pleonasm
[20:31] <MC8> "Is the blocking policy too ambiguous?"
[20:32] <+wn-rc> User:Brian McNeil changed Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance (+366) /* University of Wollongong */ cm
[20:32] <BarkingFish> Yes, considering it gets you into trouble when you do stuff you're told you can do.
[20:32] <pizero> I like that it's mostly guideline, but is that a different question?
[20:32] <BarkingFish> It shouldn't be a guideline, it needs to become a policy ALL admins must follow.
[20:32] <B-R-S> This stems from the unanimously declined attempt to have Barking's admin. It's very vague, and even contradictory.
[20:33] <+wn-rc> User:Microchip08 changed Wikinews:IRC workshop (+61) +1
[20:33] <B-R-S> Also, we should state in it consensus about the comments namespace: i.e. almost never to block trolls, racists etc
[20:33] <BarkingFish> Saying it's a guideline gives users too much free rein to do what they like within those guidelines.
[20:33] <Gryllida> What part of the policy do you find vague?
[20:33] <pizero> Detailed blocking *policy* is just an invitation to a mess.
[20:33] <BarkingFish> Gryllida: In three words - all of it.
[20:33] <Gryllida> :D
[20:33] <pizero> I miss the sane WN policy when I'm on Wikibooks.
[20:33] <BarkingFish> It says one thing at the top, then tells you something different underneath
[20:34] <pizero> The guideline is a mess, though, I agree that needs fixing.
[20:34] == MC8 changed the topic of #wikinews-workshop to: Welcome to the Wikinews Workshop! Is the blocking policy too ambiguous? How best can we identify and help our Australian students? Does the speedy deletion policy need an overhaul?
[20:34] <Mikemoral> We should at least be required to warn bedore blocking.
[20:34] <Mikemoral> *before
[20:34] <BarkingFish> Not always
[20:34] <B-R-S> But usually...
[20:34] <BarkingFish> I'd disagree with that.
[20:34] <pizero> Warn before blocking? Kittesonfire.
[20:34] <pizero> Guideline.
[20:35] <BarkingFish> In cases where we have mass socks, like the cat igniting witch of the north, they can and SHOULD be hit without notice
[20:35] <MC8> I'm opposed to indefinite blocks for anything more than the usual spammers/socks/SPAs
[20:35] <BarkingFish> indef should be a fixed rule when we spot anything like that, and should not be up for question
[20:35] <MC8> no, indef should _never_ be mandatory
[20:35] <B-R-S> It can remain guideline whilst still being a little firmer about how much room for interpretation there is, otherwise we have arguments over where the line is. Which are a distraction from mainspace.
[20:35] <BarkingFish> MC8: wrong.
[20:35] <pizero> There will be some other exception. Admins need to feel they can exercise common sense.
[20:35] <Gryllida> I think that the "When to block" section and the "Other block situations" section can be merged, and each situation outlined in detail. There being two lists confuse somewhat. Then, in each section, a link to warning templates can be added, and an explanation about how to warn.
[20:36] <MC8> It can be strongly advised, but shouldn't be "must"
[20:36] <BarkingFish> With recognisable socks, an indef should be mandatory, period.
[20:36] <Gryllida> BarkingFish: You always can have that discussed while a temporary block is in place :)
[20:36] <Gryllida> BarkingFish: The outcome of discussion would be a block extension if needed..
[20:36] <BarkingFish> Gryllida: How long should a temporary block be though? A week, a day, 12 hours?
[20:37] <Gryllida> A week, for example. This should be enough for a discussion to finish.
[20:37] <Mikemoral> 12-24 hours for the first time.
[20:37] <BarkingFish> Knock them on the head from the start, then discuss shortening it if its warranted.
[20:37] <BarkingFish> Shoot first, find out what the hell they wanted later.
[20:37] <Gryllida> What Mikemoral said. Then if the user continues disruption, place longer blocks.
[20:37] <+wn-rc> User:Microchip08 changed Wikinews:IRC workshop (+66) add date for the next one in two weeks time
[20:37] <Gryllida> While we place those blocks, we can ponder indef. block in a discussion.
[20:38] <pizero> Reasonable duration depends on circumstances.
[20:38] <BarkingFish> Gryllida: I don't agree with that at all. With a clear, obvious sock of a known sock, there should be no need for a discussion.
[20:38] <Gryllida> We have good RC partollers/administrators time coverage and it will not cause much harm done if an indefinite block is delayed.
[20:38] <BarkingFish> like FittiesonKire for example.
[20:38] <BarkingFish> It's bloody obvious who they were.
[20:39] <pizero> We can also discuss shortening a block (even an indef one).
[20:39] <BarkingFish> I don't see how discussing an indef, when it's obviously going to end in an indef, will help matters in any way whatsoever
[20:39] <B-R-S> Well, yes. Indef is not permanent. However, common sense should prevail.
[20:39] <MC8> You should be _allowed_ to indef, at your discretion, for anything that isn't a long-term editor. You should never be _forced_ to use indef.
[20:39] <pizero> It won't help flaming young cats.
[20:39] <BarkingFish> That's one thing that does need VERY clear work.
[20:39] <BarkingFish> It needs explaining somewhere that Indef does not mean "until you die"
[20:40] <BarkingFish> Indef means indefinite, or of undetermined length. It's not a death sentence and shouldn't be treated like one
[20:40] <pizero> The indef notice doesn't mention how to request unblock, does it? It should.
[20:40] <pizero> (With an override.)
[20:40] <BarkingFish> I thought it did, but I'll look
[20:40] <MC8> We could change the interface message to something less sinister
[20:40] <B-R-S> Yes, it should if it doesn't
[20:41] <MC8> Well, {{indef}} is an administrative and categorisation template; {{block|being an arse|indefinitely}} is probably still the best bet
[20:41] <Gryllida> ok, so is it documented that indefinite blocks are allowed?
[20:42] <Gryllida> I don't think so. The page needs to be rewritten in two sections, when to block and for how long
[20:43] == brianmc-laptop [~brianmc@wikinews/brianmc] has joined #wikinews-workshop
[20:43] <pizero> I always have to consult en.wp to remind me about all those finicky settings on the block.
[20:43] * brianmc-laptop is not really here....
[20:43] <B-R-S> ...Oh yes you are! </panto>
[20:44] <pizero> If you can see it, and it's not there, it's virtual.
[20:44] <MC8> A matrix of "3RR -- 24hrs max; Socking: Indef advised for SPA, 36hrs max for established users" etc
[20:45] <B-R-S> Yeah. We can argue the fine points about the lengths and when to seek consensus for longer, but the plan is decent.
[20:45] <BarkingFish> pizero: If users on indef were to request unblock, could they use the same methods for normal blocks, or should they just be via email?
[20:45] <pizero> Why should they be different?
[20:46] <MC8> On-wiki should always be preferable to off-wiki, in any case
[20:46] <BarkingFish> i doubt they'd be able to edit their own talk page in some cases
[20:46] <pizero> If they can't use their own talk page, they probably can't email either.
[20:46] * MC8 keeps meaning to go through the blocks and untick that box after a few days
[20:46] <BarkingFish> they send to a pasted address though, not through Special:EmailUser
[20:46] <BarkingFish> so they'd send most likely from their own client
[20:47] <pizero> That seems at least somewhat separate from length of block.
[20:48] <pizero> talk/email blocks are likely to coincide with indef, though.
[20:48] <B-R-S> talk/email is only disabled for those who abuse them e.g. Kittiesonfire
[20:49] <BarkingFish> yeah, but they could still email the address in the block template -
[20:49] <BarkingFish> from whatever client they use, kmail, outlook express or whatever
[20:49] * brianmc-laptop points MC8 at RC and threatens xe with three of the best for an incorrect block removal
[20:49] * MC8 disputes that
[20:49] <brianmc-laptop> Did you even check xyr contribution history?
[20:50] <MC8> Yes.
[20:50] <brianmc-laptop>
[20:51] <MC8> brianmc-laptop: take this to #wikinews
[20:51] <brianmc-laptop> Anyone else want to offer an opinion?
[20:53] <Gryllida> About?
[20:54] <BarkingFish> pizero: I'm gonna make a minor change to the indef template, I'll rollback if you want, but this is an idea of what the indef template would look like with the unblock info in.
[20:54] <BarkingFish> pizero:
[20:54] <pizero> brianmc-latptop: Vandalism only on Wikinews. Contributions on other projects don't obviously override that, as their attitude to Wikinews may differ from their attitudes to other projects. (When did this public workshop turn into an admin workshop?)
[20:54] <BarkingFish> anyone on wiki, please don't sight this
[20:54] <MC8> wn-rc: wpl add Template:Indefblocked
[20:54] <+wn-rc> Template:Indefblocked has been added to watched pages list.
[20:55] <BarkingFish> obviously, the text size in the box could do with some shrinking to make it a bit smaller, that's a bit large imo
[20:55] <+wn-rc> User:Microchip08 changed Template:Indefblocked (-85) rmv 403
[20:56] <brianmc-laptop> The problem with using the wikinews OTRS address is that after it was 'conveniently' taken off myself the queue only got looked at once or twice a month.
[20:58] == qwebirc84467 [4a244411@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #wikinews-workshop
[20:58] <MC8> qwebirc84467: type /nick <your username>
[20:59] <B-R-S> That assumes xe's even registered ;) Could be a guest poping in. Hi to them either way. :)
[21:00] == qwebirc84467 has changed nick to Nascar1996
[21:00] <dendodge> It's a Nascar!
[21:01] <Gryllida> Nascar1996!
[21:01] <pizero> That template is messed up. It has two <noincludes>s in it, but only one . Even I can tell that's not right.
[21:01] == B-R-S [~Sandman@wikinews/Blood-Red-Sandman] has quit [Quit: I need to get into the real world]
[21:01] == Nascar1996 [4a244411@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Client Quit]
[21:01] <Mikemoral> Seeing we are going off topic again, any last words on the blocking policy?
[21:02] <BarkingFish> pizero: Which, the new indefblocked one?
[21:02] <BarkingFish> yes.
[21:02] <BarkingFish> It needs fixing, clarifying and making a proper policy. Guidelines are no good if when you follow them you get bollocked.
[21:03] <brianmc-laptop> Oh, to cover the other point in the discussion - the Auzzies.....
[21:03] <BarkingFish> The whole BP at the moment is as clear as mud, and serves no purpose other than to confuse the hell out of you.
[21:03] <pizero> *Good* guidelines aren't such a problem, and objections get raised anyway when it's a policy (as I've seen elsewhere).
[21:03] <+wn-rc> User:Microchip08 changed Template:Indefblocked (-11) fix on behalf of pizero
[21:03] <brianmc-laptop> I can ask them when I'm on the conference call with Prof Blackall this Thursday night :D
[21:04] <Mikemoral> Are we ready for the next item on the agenda?
[21:04] <pizero> I'm not happy with the existing guidelines in the BP. Unstable version.
[21:04] <BarkingFish> there isn't one, i don't think, Mikemoral
[21:04] <Mikemoral> "How best can we identify and help our Australian students?"
[21:04] <BarkingFish> oh, yes there is :)
[21:04] <pizero> We're already on that, while still talking about the previous one.
[21:04] <pizero> Keep up! :-)
[21:05] <brianmc-laptop> I believe I just answered that :D
[21:05] <pizero> Sounded like a good answer to me.
[21:05] <Mikemoral> And the last item then.
[21:05] <BarkingFish> you can simply ask them to add a note to their userpage when they first edit, or put UoW student 2011 in their first edit summary
[21:05] <Mikemoral> "Does the speedy deletion policy need an overhaul?"
[21:06] <brianmc-laptop> No.
[21:06] <+wn-rc> User:Microchip08 changed Template:Indefblocked (-6) +
[21:06] <MC8> Yes.
[21:06] <BarkingFish> not that I can see. It works perfectly well
[21:06] <brianmc-laptop> Why?
[21:06] <MC8> There's nothing on commentspace, for starters.
[21:06] <pizero> Huh?
[21:06] <MC8> When does one delete a thread, for example
[21:06] <pizero> Oh.
[21:07] <brianmc-laptop> One does not
[21:07] <BarkingFish> they don't
[21:07] <MC8> Not at all?
[21:07] <brianmc-laptop> Nope.
[21:07] <BarkingFish> Comment space, sorry, Trollspace, is left entirely alone
[21:07] <brianmc-laptop> Not an entire thread
[21:07] <pizero> What about libel and copyvio?
[21:07] <dendodge> Not even if it's a copyvio?
[21:07] <pizero> ^
[21:07] <MC8> But what about a fragment, or whatever it's called?
[21:07] <Mikemoral> Or total nonsense.
[21:07] <brianmc-laptop> You would, obviously, delete copyvio and other items that should be globally applied
[21:07] <BarkingFish> See the AAA for that one.
[21:07] <dendodge> Do we delete a 10kB post about llamas, or does it stay and clog up the page?
[21:08] <MC8> And currently everything is bundled under a header for "articles"; there's very few explicitly defined global reasons
[21:08] <brianmc-laptop> Llamas are lovely!
[21:08] <dendodge> Yes, they are.
[21:08] <brianmc-laptop> This is pointless wikilawyering
[21:08] <MC8> At the very least, we need to rearrange the order to remove the ambiguity.
[21:09] <brianmc-laptop> I need to go find a power point....
[21:09] <MC8> Admins should be accountable. When there's unclear rules and regs as to what to do, that falls apart.
[21:09] <pizero> Is "pointless wikilawyering" redundant?
[21:09] == brianmc-laptop [~brianmc@wikinews/brianmc] has quit [Quit: Out of Batteries]
[21:09] <pizero> Batteries? Who knew brianmc ran on batteries?
[21:09] <pizero> (Sorry about that.)
[21:09] <MC8> shakeup
[21:10] <BarkingFish> I wonder why nobody told me my issue with amgine had been closed?
[21:11] <Gryllida> BarkingFish: #wikinews :)
[21:11] <pizero> It went out with a whimper.
[21:11] <BarkingFish> yep
[21:11] <BarkingFish> "No support for removal"
[21:11] <MC8> I feel that everything an admin does should be written down. There's no reason that it can't be, and it minimises the fallout when an admin goes one bold too far
[21:12] <BarkingFish> but going back to the removing of stuff from trollspace, I'll paste here what Brian told me on that RFP/Removal
[21:12] <BarkingFish> "If, short of clear libel, or incitement to illegal acts, it improves readership, it is serving its purpose; "
[21:12] <pizero> MC8: Red tape is evil.
[21:12] <BarkingFish> In short, unless it's illegal or libellous, leave it alone
[21:13] <pizero> Patent nonsense, though.
[21:13] <dendodge> We should really leave 10kB rants about llamas?
[21:13] <pizero> eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaasdfjkl;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;, for example.
[21:14] <BarkingFish> Well I guess I can go back to doing what I normally do, and wait for the next one to surface. I can go back to regular admin duties now.
[21:14] <dendodge> iewubgfanxmfgrsbjksdinsoapbiouvehrdpfvfdsdfsvggf.bhmg/k.t............................... for another example :)
[21:14] <dendodge> (Lol, I spelt "soap"! :D )
[21:14] <Gryllida> too long
[21:14] <MC8> pizero: I disagree. Red tape, in this case, makes it easier for newbies to understand. Instruction creep, on the other hand, is a bad thing. But a "do"s and "don't"s keeps people in check. When does one know when one is circumventing policy? If it's defined, there's less arguing when someone disagrees.
[21:14] <BarkingFish> dendodge: in what language? Mongolian?
[21:15] <dendodge> No, it has "soap" tucked away in the middle :)
[21:15] <dendodge> "in soap bio", to be precise.
[21:15] * dendodge returns to the topic.
[21:16] <pizero> MC8: We're talking back and forth in generalities, and one can go forever without getting anywhere that way.
[21:16] == Wackywace [] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
[21:16] <pizero> Are we ready to close this workshop? Is there really anything more to accomplish here?
[21:17] <MC8> Someone commenting on my proposal on Wikinews talk:SD would be nice :P
[21:17] <Mikemoral> I don't think so.
[21:17] <Mikemoral> It's been actually somewhat productive today. :)
[21:17] <Gryllida> We can edit the blocking policy together if someone likes to do it now. I don't know whether we do that.
[21:17] <Gryllida> Well, at the workshops at least.
[21:17] <Mikemoral> That's something we discuss on-wiki.
[21:18] <Gryllida> ok
[21:18] <Mikemoral> So, unless anyone wants to add something, I think we are done.
[21:18] <pizero> Blocking policy: Unstable branch would be good.
[21:18] <pizero> (All I wanted to add. :-) )
[21:19] <Mikemoral> This concludes the meeting then.
[21:19] <MikemoralClone> <--logging ends here-->