| Revision as of 19:45, 26 May 2016 editGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers380,627 edits →Elected to arbcom: Looks like a good image for the cabal of the outcasts!← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:46, 26 May 2016 edit undoOpabinia regalis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators16,306 edits →Thank you: Warning: Snark detected!Next edit → | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| :::::::::::: The snark bot, would it pick up the first comment which needed context and perhaps a look at a user page for even humans to understand (and at least one human didn't)? The reply was no snark at all, just filthy. ({{diff|User talk:Curly Turkey|722141482|722119797|better walk away}}) --] (]) 07:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC) | :::::::::::: The snark bot, would it pick up the first comment which needed context and perhaps a look at a user page for even humans to understand (and at least one human didn't)? The reply was no snark at all, just filthy. ({{diff|User talk:Curly Turkey|722141482|722119797|better walk away}}) --] (]) 07:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
| {{Od}} Blocks are a powerful extinguisher and their long-term benefits are proven. Misplaced Pages's blocking culture has not contributed towards the deterioration of discourse on the site. Izkala (]) 12:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC) | {{Od}} Blocks are a powerful extinguisher and their long-term benefits are proven. Misplaced Pages's blocking culture has not contributed towards the deterioration of discourse on the site. Izkala (]) 12:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :<font color="red">'''''Warning: Snark detected!'''''</font> The preceding comment has been determined with high probability (0.983302) to be an instance of snark. Give me a challenge next time! ] 19:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Spotlight on women entertainers! == | == Spotlight on women entertainers! == | ||
Revision as of 19:46, 26 May 2016
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
UI testing
To follow up on our conversation at VPT: UI work isn't hard science. The industry standard is to test about five users, because 85% of user interface problems (assuming average visibility, which is 31%) can be reliably identified by testing just five people in a single study. So the usual standard is to test five, fix what you learned, and repeat. In the instant case, the problem has somewhat higher than average visibility (about 50%), and has been tested in far more than five users over multiple studies. Given the total numbers and the uniformity of the results over time and across testing systems, I think it is not unreasonable to refer to it as a fact that at least some new users are confused by this.
If you'd like to see UI testing in action, then you can sign up to be a research participant. They do hour-long, recorded video calls for people who aren't in the Bay area or at an event where they're testing. The link to the sign-up form is on mediawiki.org. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Whatamidoing (WMF): Thanks for the links. (I confess to a bit of this problem ;) I realize that by telling a group of Misplaced Pages editors about this, you're telling a self-selected group that either didn't find this confusing, or got over it quickly, and are therefore naturally skeptical of the claim that this is a high-visibility serious issue. But if it is such a robust effect, you must have also studied the effects of the proposed intervention and seen a measurable improvement, and those measurements can be scaled up to a larger sample size. And the improvement hopefully means that the allegedly confused new editors are then, once relieved of their confusion, able to go on to make productive and useful edits. My entirely non-scientific instinct is, frankly, that people starting out this far down on the learning curve are not going to learn enough independently to avoid making messes regardless of what label's on the button. I will also confess to unreasonable irritation that just about any experienced user could make a list a mile long of what sucks about the interface, but this kind of deck-chair-rearranging with no publicly documented justification and no demand from the existing userbase is what gets apparent priority. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- This change requires very little dev time, so it doesn't require official approval and budgets and whatnot. Unlike, say, the plan to completely re-write the wikitext editor, which is underway.
- The testing method for this has been face-to-face interviews. The measurement is stated confusion. It doesn't scale. And the point isn't primarily being able to go on to make productive and useful edits. It's more like not saving edits that you didn't want to have read by the entire world, which is not something that you can realistically measure through edit counts. There's no log that can tell you the user's intentions. (In re XKCD 435: Me, too. And, yes, we're dealing with people who have self-selected for having figured it out. It's very hard to remember how complicated this stuff is, when you've got our level of success and experience.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- And now I'm back in "not buying it" territory, sorry ;) People who are confused behave differently than people who are not confused. If there is no detectable difference in behavior between those who claim confusion and those who don't, then the confusion is epiphenomenal and irrelevant. But you've implied twice now that there is a detectable difference in behavior: people who are not confused are less likely to post private information. So you do have an observable after all. You predict that people who click a button labeled "Publish" will prompt fewer suppression actions, have fewer pages deleted, and/or have their edit text persist longer compared to people who click a button "Save page". But apparently no one intends to test whether the change has actually had the predicted effect. I hope you've at least tested in the interview format whether the "Publish" version actually reduces claimed confusion. ("Save changes", "Save edits", "Submit", and "Post" all come to mind as much more intuitive alternatives, so surely there is some reason "Publish" has been chosen, other than a bullet point on an unpublished powerpoint slide. If this hasn't been tested, then, well, at least I'll finally understand how Flow could have happened.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Publish" is a legally significant term. While it's possible to use others ("Save and Publish" was suggested by someone today), what you are doing when you 'save' or 'post' something on any public wiki is publishing it. Making this fact clearer (e.g., yes, what you're clicking on will count as 'publication' as defined in laws about libel) can only be considered a good thing.
- If the stated rationales for deletion, etc., were always precise, accurate and complete, and if the people whose behavior changed had no other differences from editors who did not change their behavior (e.g., if the type of editor who would hesitate over "publising" something were not also the type of editor who would avoid writing 'Johnny is gay' on an article), then it would be possible to test for that in a scalable, automated fashion. However, none of those assumptions are valid. Even if those were valid, we're talking about having a small effect on an infrequent (although sometimes very severe) problem, in a system with a lot of noise. Even at the English Misplaced Pages, it could take a very long time to be certain that any such effect was real – and if you don't find an effect in the particular thing that you tried to measure, then you still don't know that making the change would have no effect. You only know that the specific effect that you hypothesized was not seen – and that the effect you have already documented (of individual, personally interviewed users saying that they're confused) still exists.
- At worst, this change is expected to be harmless to new users, except possibly Wikinews, which has a formal process that differentiates drafts from 'finished' articles and which is called "publication". It might be confusing there to "Publish" a page and then be told that it's not "really published" yet. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- The people who are sincerely confused about whether the "save page" button will save the page are very low on the clue scale. The people who are typing libelous things in the edit window and then clicking "save page" without realizing their libel will become public are the most clueless of the clueless. The expectation that they will have any idea whatsoever that "publish" is a legally significant term in this context strikes me as completely unrealistic. I still don't understand from the way you describe this - "this change is expected to be harmless..." - whether you have actually tested it and found it harmless, or better yet, actually effective at solving the problem - or if this is just sort of a vague hope. Having information about user behavior in that context would surely facilitate the definition of predicted changes at scale. If the aim is instead something more like "it's better for the WMF's legal position to use a legally significant term so that we can do a better job of dealing with libelous posts", then that's a perfectly reasonable goal, but it's not really the way the proposed change was originally described (
The "Save page" button when you edit will be called "Publish" instead. This is to help new editors understand what it does.
, and follow-up comments about what actions feel "risky") nor does it really meanless mess for the rest of us to clean up
. Sounds more like "when someone makes a mess, we want a bigger mop". - If I sound grumpy, it's because I just read that VE thread at the village pump. To be honest, you (as in the WMF, not you personally) get resistance to seemingly minor, "expected to be harmless" changes because they get fucked up so often. Reliable, consistent, and usable publication of data from user testing - by which I mean not powerpoint slides - is one way to alleviate this problem. People are more likely to go along with seemingly unimportant or counterintuitive changes if their basis in evidence is readily apparent. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- The people who are sincerely confused about whether the "save page" button will save the page are very low on the clue scale. The people who are typing libelous things in the edit window and then clicking "save page" without realizing their libel will become public are the most clueless of the clueless. The expectation that they will have any idea whatsoever that "publish" is a legally significant term in this context strikes me as completely unrealistic. I still don't understand from the way you describe this - "this change is expected to be harmless..." - whether you have actually tested it and found it harmless, or better yet, actually effective at solving the problem - or if this is just sort of a vague hope. Having information about user behavior in that context would surely facilitate the definition of predicted changes at scale. If the aim is instead something more like "it's better for the WMF's legal position to use a legally significant term so that we can do a better job of dealing with libelous posts", then that's a perfectly reasonable goal, but it's not really the way the proposed change was originally described (
- And now I'm back in "not buying it" territory, sorry ;) People who are confused behave differently than people who are not confused. If there is no detectable difference in behavior between those who claim confusion and those who don't, then the confusion is epiphenomenal and irrelevant. But you've implied twice now that there is a detectable difference in behavior: people who are not confused are less likely to post private information. So you do have an observable after all. You predict that people who click a button labeled "Publish" will prompt fewer suppression actions, have fewer pages deleted, and/or have their edit text persist longer compared to people who click a button "Save page". But apparently no one intends to test whether the change has actually had the predicted effect. I hope you've at least tested in the interview format whether the "Publish" version actually reduces claimed confusion. ("Save changes", "Save edits", "Submit", and "Post" all come to mind as much more intuitive alternatives, so surely there is some reason "Publish" has been chosen, other than a bullet point on an unpublished powerpoint slide. If this hasn't been tested, then, well, at least I'll finally understand how Flow could have happened.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Request to be Unblocked
| Not productive |
|---|
|
Hi Opabinia, did you and the rest of the Arbcom mailing list receive my email of April 24? I asked to be unblocked. I was a contributor of solid content for five or six years before I was perma-blocked without warning with a button click falsely labeling me a sockpuppet by an administrator that didn't explain anything. I was proud of my contributions to Misplaced Pages and would like to do so again. As you look into my case (as I expect you to, given your position as arbitrator) do not accept as fact any accusation against me without allowing me to respond. I have endured many many lies and WP:AN/ANI mob attacks in which I was muted and my defenses erased, resulting in damage to my reputation as an editor. Further, do not accept the assertion of Thryduulf at my talkpage that I am on an "appeal timer," because he has no authority to do any such thing and there is nothing in policy that allows him this, as well his purporting timing is unevidenced and suspect. Answer my email or unblock my talkpage and we'll be able to communicate about this important matter. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.207.162 (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Izkala
Please look at the most recent history of this user's edits. Although they self-reverted, I'm very uncomfortable with their having the template editor privilege. I saw that you granted the privilege among others recently and your explanation why, but their block log from 2015 backwards is lengthy and not pretty. I would be in favor of at least removing the template editor privilege. The user doesn't appear to have good judgment, and the previous blocks for personal attacks don't seem to have stopped based on the edit summary, "odd, I don't seem to recall having asked if any privileged assholes agree with me. in any case, it more closely reflects reality". You probably are privy to information I don't have based on your unblock of the user after their being blocked indefinitely by Anna, but that doesn't alter my mind about the present situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughts on my block log. Perhaps if we decorated it with cat pictures? Izkala (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: Thanks for your note. I don't agree in this case - a large fraction of Izkala's recent edits have been template-related, and they're productive and useful. The present situation seems to consist of two rude edit summaries and a self-revert, and seems to be over, and looks more like a case of "that was rude, put a dollar in the swear jar" than something warranting escalation. I suggest SPI should adopt a nice mascot and put him in the header instead ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
... for "Misplaced Pages:If you're that pissed off, put down the keyboard and go outside. (Why is that still a red link?)" - next time, please vote on different topics with a new time stamp, then you'll get just a thank-you-click ;) - Today: most welcome feast of joy, pictured. I was cited to ANI, - what do you think? I told our friend who outed himself as male ("Because if I were female, I might've grown some resistance to this bullshit.") that being blocked may be better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh hey, the link has been blued! I just barely managed to restrain myself from voting via lolcat. Srs Bsns over there and all.
- A very nice article, congratulations! Yes, I saw the ANI thread - I confess I haven't read it, though. There's only so much bullshit I can read at a time. He's got a point, though; women are better at it ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Two things (thinks was a nice buut unintended pun) about the longish thread I hope you will be able to read on your escape out: The last proposal (1RR) is short (and by a woman) and only asks behaviour that I thought was the normal way of collaborative editing anyway. Can you support that? - I have been called User:Gerda the Notorious Infoboxen wikiCriminal in 2013 and found it amusing, kept it on my user page for two years. I am not amused by "I dont think Gerda needed any help discrediting themselves." and said so, there and on the user's talk (header ARCA). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, on the 'discredited' thing; we need some more red links filled in for that kind of comment. WP:SNARKY? But I'm still not reading that thread ;) I'll probably make a hypocrite of myself soon enough when something extra dumb comes along, but I think it's best for arbs to not stick their noses in at ANI. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not the snarkiness that I mind, - it's that it would require a citation. He (seems to be a man) says the article name was not changed. I have three diffs of a change (listed in the same discussion). You could stick your nose in for sniffing but I understand that you have more pleasant things to do ;) - So do I. I told the article name changer that I have no time, on 20 April. The first
hitname change came on 26 April. If it doesn't get solved, this and the many edits in between will go to arbitration, - perhaps better prevent that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)- Oh no, don't bring that stuff to arbcom! Well, unless you're going to sing for us... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do not fear: I bring nothing to arbcom but clarification, I bring nothing to ANI but a plea for talk page access. But I am not alone. - Clarification: I still adhere (unless provoked) to 2 comments per discussion (which I believe is liberating) so only watch this discussion deteriorate (to removing edits of the other side and saying "you were made to look like the idiot that you are"). It doesn't improve collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Talk page access? Who's blocked now? Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't clear enough, that was way back when Alakzi was blocked and protested under other names, - the one and only time I went to ANI without being called there. The only times I sought arbitration was for clarification, and I may seek it for the discussion which is (partly) hatted now (including the line quoted), after exchange of some comments which have nothing to do with improving said article. Imagine a bot that eliminates personal snark and also the overly general remarks, about ib fanatism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whew! I was afraid I'd find moar dramaz out there somewhere. Anybody want to fund development of SnarkBot? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Two blocks overnight (and unblocks), for still more inventive ways of - you name it. Every editor is a human being. - How do you like my idea of - instead of an interaction ban - request the two write an article together? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, either it'll work or the two will explode in a puff of drama... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- The snark bot, would it pick up the first comment which needed context and perhaps a look at a user page for even humans to understand (and at least one human didn't)? The reply was no snark at all, just filthy. (better walk away) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, either it'll work or the two will explode in a puff of drama... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Two blocks overnight (and unblocks), for still more inventive ways of - you name it. Every editor is a human being. - How do you like my idea of - instead of an interaction ban - request the two write an article together? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whew! I was afraid I'd find moar dramaz out there somewhere. Anybody want to fund development of SnarkBot? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't clear enough, that was way back when Alakzi was blocked and protested under other names, - the one and only time I went to ANI without being called there. The only times I sought arbitration was for clarification, and I may seek it for the discussion which is (partly) hatted now (including the line quoted), after exchange of some comments which have nothing to do with improving said article. Imagine a bot that eliminates personal snark and also the overly general remarks, about ib fanatism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Talk page access? Who's blocked now? Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do not fear: I bring nothing to arbcom but clarification, I bring nothing to ANI but a plea for talk page access. But I am not alone. - Clarification: I still adhere (unless provoked) to 2 comments per discussion (which I believe is liberating) so only watch this discussion deteriorate (to removing edits of the other side and saying "you were made to look like the idiot that you are"). It doesn't improve collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh no, don't bring that stuff to arbcom! Well, unless you're going to sing for us... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not the snarkiness that I mind, - it's that it would require a citation. He (seems to be a man) says the article name was not changed. I have three diffs of a change (listed in the same discussion). You could stick your nose in for sniffing but I understand that you have more pleasant things to do ;) - So do I. I told the article name changer that I have no time, on 20 April. The first
- You're right, on the 'discredited' thing; we need some more red links filled in for that kind of comment. WP:SNARKY? But I'm still not reading that thread ;) I'll probably make a hypocrite of myself soon enough when something extra dumb comes along, but I think it's best for arbs to not stick their noses in at ANI. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Two things (thinks was a nice buut unintended pun) about the longish thread I hope you will be able to read on your escape out: The last proposal (1RR) is short (and by a woman) and only asks behaviour that I thought was the normal way of collaborative editing anyway. Can you support that? - I have been called User:Gerda the Notorious Infoboxen wikiCriminal in 2013 and found it amusing, kept it on my user page for two years. I am not amused by "I dont think Gerda needed any help discrediting themselves." and said so, there and on the user's talk (header ARCA). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Blocks are a powerful extinguisher and their long-term benefits are proven. Misplaced Pages's blocking culture has not contributed towards the deterioration of discourse on the site. Izkala (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Warning: Snark detected! The preceding comment has been determined with high probability (0.983302) to be an instance of snark. Give me a challenge next time! SnarkBot 3000 19:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Spotlight on women entertainers!
  | |
|---|---|
|
Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon
| |
--Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
Elected to arbcom
Twelve of Fourteen: You have been elected to arbcom. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. NE Ent 09:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm gonna be a dick about how I think you're now a shill of the establishment, but I'm also gonna sprinkle a load of pop culture references to mask my dickery. Izkala (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Waaaaait, what happened when we picked numbers? I want to be at least in the top half of.... owwww! This assimilation thing is a bitch.
- Maybe I am a shill of the establishment. There are five lights! OK, I just looked that up and it turns out that was the Cardassians. Apparently I don't actually remember any of the relevant plot points, just the memes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, I could have sworn that whole bit was from when Picard was a Borg. My indoctrination has failed me! nooooooooo Keilana (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I thought too! Or maybe I only thought that because you thought that. Shit. So there's no assimilation quality control, huh? Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you're happy, I've had the "Captain Kirk is climbing a mountain" song stuck in my head for the past, like, 12 hours. Apparently we mind-melded during our assimilation? Keilana (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Given the number of 14-to-1 votes I was on the short end of even in my seventh year on the Committee, I'm not sure this assimilation thing always works as well as it's supposed to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- What's a shill? I just thought I would gather a few "authentic" definitions. Irondome (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ahh shill. We even have an article on it. Irondome (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- As in "shill probably be sorry she took this job"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry or not, I'm happy you did, meaning all you arbs in this thread, not only the 14:1 who was the only one representing me then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed NYB. And please don't call me Shirley. Irondome (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
. and she always has kittens! How much better could this be. hugs and paw pats all around. Fylbecatulous talk 15:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- NYB, does that make you Loquacious of Borg? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry or not, I'm happy you did, meaning all you arbs in this thread, not only the 14:1 who was the only one representing me then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- As in "shill probably be sorry she took this job"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ahh shill. We even have an article on it. Irondome (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- What's a shill? I just thought I would gather a few "authentic" definitions. Irondome (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Given the number of 14-to-1 votes I was on the short end of even in my seventh year on the Committee, I'm not sure this assimilation thing always works as well as it's supposed to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you're happy, I've had the "Captain Kirk is climbing a mountain" song stuck in my head for the past, like, 12 hours. Apparently we mind-melded during our assimilation? Keilana (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I thought too! Or maybe I only thought that because you thought that. Shit. So there's no assimilation quality control, huh? Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, I could have sworn that whole bit was from when Picard was a Borg. My indoctrination has failed me! nooooooooo Keilana (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a good image for the cabal of the outcasts! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)