Feedback: a good start
 Resolved (since 06:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC))
|
|---|
A couple things to note:
- Projects are constantly reviewed by the Scratch Team, even if they were never flagged.
- In the intro sentence, I'm not sure if "view" and "flag" should be given equal status, since really 99% of the time, only viewing will happen (Also, these are very different kinds of actions.)
I think that's all so far. Nice work though, sci!
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 17:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I was wondering a bit about that. So, you often just press a review button on projects you view, or however you do it?
- I was thinking about that myself. I decided to only include those two for a couple reasons:
- If the project gets flagged, usually it won't be loved or faved, or the other things you can do.
- This page is about flagging, which is why i included it.
- The whole list is rather long.
- If the project gets flagged, usually it won't be loved or faved, or the other things you can do.
- And thanks!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Scimonster, you can see a basic picture of the process here. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Scimonster, you can see a basic picture of the process here. :)
Removing the NFE Detector Code
| Resolved (since 12:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC))
|
|---|
I removed the NFE Detector code because the ST does not want that information to be easily accessible. My source for this is that Jeffalo received an alert for posting a link to a NFE detector site:
It is a reasonable conclusion that posting how to detect NFE on the Wiki is also something they would not approve of. I thus pre-emptively removed it to avoid the ST contacting us asking it to be removed. Ultimately, maintaining the goodwill of the Scratch Team is absolutely critical for this Wiki to serve its intended purpose, and that includes following their wishes for what content is/isn't made public.
Normally in this case BRD would apply, where me removing the information is the "bold" edit, but in this case since we risk harming our relationship with the Scratch Team, that rule is not being applied in this case. For this specific case, given the need to maintain the approval of the content on this Wiki by the Scratch Team, consensus is not enough to add it back, we need strong evidence that the ST would be ok with this.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- On a personal level, I think your explanation that of "harming our relationship with the Scratch Team" is extremely unconvincing. But regardless of whatever the reason was, the use of admintools in Special:Diff/269363 while actively involved in the content dispute is problematic and may be mentioned at Community portal.
- As for the change itself in question, this business of "relationship with the Scratch Team" is actively harming Scratch Wiki. It should be clear that any wiki that operates under censorship or removing information via bias or external motives is one not healthy, and something that should be fixed. Whether or not Scratch Team thinks it should be public is something for them to deal with, but actively removing valid and useful information at external disposal request goes completely against the goals that any wiki should strive for.
Naleksuh (talk | contribs) 04:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Naleksuh. While I agree with you that maintaining good relations with the Scratch Team is important, it is also critical for the wiki not to delete information that is accurate. I'd say it's more important to avoid censoring content than to maintain a perfect relationship with the Scratch Team. The issue's small enough that I doubt the Scratch Team will make a big deal out of it.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Naleksuh. Quoting MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs):
- I agree with Naleksuh. While I agree with you that maintaining good relations with the Scratch Team is important, it is also critical for the wiki not to delete information that is accurate. I'd say it's more important to avoid censoring content than to maintain a perfect relationship with the Scratch Team. The issue's small enough that I doubt the Scratch Team will make a big deal out of it.
| “ | The relevance of knowledge in a wiki is not dependent on the number of people using that knowledge, but on the liability of the knowledge and the use for the one who could need it - even if it was only one person. Everybody who needs it should find this knowledge | ” |
I will use Contact Us soon. 
Lovecodeabc Links: talk page | scratch profile | contributions 14:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I understand all of your concerns, but this isn't really up for debate. We aren't just a Wiki about Scratch, but we are the Scratch Wiki. The usefulness of this project stems almost entirely from being linked to and approved by the Scratch Team, given that they sponsor Wiki Wednesday, include a BBCode tag on the forums, link to us in the footer, etc. Therefore it is absolutely critical that we respect the desires of the Scratch Team so that they continue doing so. Martin's quote is interesting, but ultimately in this case nobody needs to know if someone else's project is NFE, the only real benefit there is curiosity. While I generally support curiosity, this is an exception given that the Scratch Team has acted expressly against it (see my original message), and we cannot sacrifice our relationship with the Scratch Team for the sake of curiosity (or really any other reason). Yes this is a form of censorship, but a form of censorship necessary for the Wiki to continue to serve its intended purpose. jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, okay I've used Contact Us.
Lovecodeabc Links: talk page | scratch profile | contributions 16:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I know that it's probably authentic, but do you have proof that the crop of the message wasn't edited or doctored? Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 06:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is useful, accurate information - do not remove useful, accurate, and true info. This is a wiki.All knowledge should be here, not just approved knowledge. Lovecodeabc Links: talk page | scratch profile | contributions 19:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Are we really at the point where y'all believe I'm posting forged content for something that's ultimately not that prominent? If so, it's seriously concerning that we all have this little trust for each other. There is in the end nothing that can be done to "prove" it is authentic short of giving access to the relevant account or having the Scratch Team post publicly about it (which is against their policy).
- Lovecodeabc, I understand what you're saying, but ultimately the fact is that only approved knowledge should be here. As nice an ideal as editorial independence is, the reality is we do not have that. To illustrate the situation a little differently, take the hypothetical scenario that a glitch is found that allowed people to hack into others' accounts but is not well-known. In that case, until the glitch is conclusively fixed, it would absolutely not be acceptable to post information about how to exploit it on the Wiki, even if knowing about the glitch may be considered useful. This situation is a much less extreme example, the same idea applies. While there is not security at stake, there is privacy at stake, and the Scratch Team takes privacy very seriously, especially given the age of the users. It is not our place to actively subvert their goals, and in fact it is in our best interests to uphold them since if we are known for posting information the Scratch Team does not want public, they will likely stop linking to us, and the Wiki will then lose a lot of its relevance. jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- All knowledge should be here if it is not disapproved of by the Scratch Team, if they actively don't want it public, then we, as a wiki, should respect that. In my eyes, you can post it between yourselves in private, but wherever Scratch or publicity are concerned, the endpoint should not be made public. We're not removing all knowledge that is yet to be approved; only the knowledge that we know we do not have authorisation to include in our sources of information. 20:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- All knowledge should be here if it is not disapproved of by the Scratch Team, if they actively don't want it public, then we, as a wiki, should respect that. In my eyes, you can post it between yourselves in private, but wherever Scratch or publicity are concerned, the endpoint should not be made public. We're not removing all knowledge that is yet to be approved; only the knowledge that we know we do not have authorisation to include in our sources of information.
- This is useful, accurate information - do not remove useful, accurate, and true info. This is a wiki.All knowledge should be here, not just approved knowledge.
- I know that it's probably authentic, but do you have proof that the crop of the message wasn't edited or doctored?
- Yeah, okay I've used Contact Us.
@Lovecodeabc, if the Scratch Team does not certain content on the main site, it should not be here either. The Scratch Team does a lot for us, even putting a link to us in the footer. If content was removed on the main site, it should not be here either, even though the wiki is a place for all knowledge, it is not a place for knowledge that the Scratch Team does not want public.
leahcimto talk • contribs • profile 22:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- @jvvg, I don't think you posted forged content. Sorry about my previous message. It was rude in retrospect. I was just trying to point out that since you didn't take the picture, you can't know for sure that the photo wasn't doctored, even if it most likely wasn't. But I see your point. Even so, I still don't think we should remove useful information for something as small as this. I would support removing it if the Scratch Team directly asked for the information to be removed from the wiki, but I think it should stay unless that happens. Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 22:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here are my reasons for a no support:
a) The ST did not ask, publicly or privately, for us to remove the content.
b) Until an offical statement is issued, I assume that the ST doesn't mind this info on the Wiki.
Here's a rule that we should follow, and jvvg broke:
Higher-ups (EW, admin, burecrat) SHOULD NOT use their powers (e.g. protecting) to win a side in a disagreement. Lovecodeabc Links: talk page | scratch profile | contributions 01:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here are my reasons for a no support:
| “ | This isn't really up for debate | ” |
– jvvg | ||
I disagree. The wiki isn't supposed to be a system where the opinions of higher-up's completely cancels out the opinions of contributors, and like lovecodeabc pointed out, the protection of the page was unnecessary. The majority of people do not support the removal, so the page should be unprotected, and the information should be added back. (By the way, sorry if this post comes off as rude. That's not my intention, I'm just trying to make a point) Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 02:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Higher-ups aren't kings. That, and Jackson49's post explains everything. Lovecodeabc Links: talk page | scratch profile | contributions 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Simply because we were not directly asked to delete content does not mean we should not remove it. For example, if someone posted the home address of a Scratch Team member on the relevant page, that would be immediately removed before we get a request. The Scratch Team would righyfully be angry at us for not removing it. Once again this is not quite as severe an example (I'm using severe examples to make the point more obvious), but it is a similar idea. It is our responsibility to comply with Scratch policy (and as a bureaucrat, complying with Scratch policy does sometimes mean having to override popular opinion), and if they know we are only removing content they do not approve of after they contact us, that also would not be good for our relationship with the Scratch Team, which as I have stated before is absolutely critical to the success of the Wiki.
- This is more than just a content issue, this is a business issue (to the extent that the term is applicable to the Wiki). That is why I am both overriding what seems to be popular opinion and protecting the page to ensure that. Normally I will only protect a page in an edit dispute in the event of an edit war, and the protection will simply to stop the warring (and I will try to leave the page as whatever it was before the edit war). However, as a bureaucrat of the Wiki, it is my responsibility to consider the business implications of the content on our Wiki, a concern others do not really need to consider. Business concerns ultimately override all other concerns, including the concern of community consensus and following other established procedures (because, as I have said repeatedly, if the Scratch Team loses confidence in us to respect their wishes/philosophy, they may stop sponsoring us in the way they do and the Wiki will quickly fade to irrelevance). Since we absolutely cannot risk damaging our relationship with the Scratch Team, I protected the page to prevent anyone from adding the content back. jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Let me also make this abundantly clear, this is not just a standard content disagreement as often occurs on the Wiki. Normally the concerns in a disagreement are things like relevance, accuracy, formatting, following procedure, etc. All of those can be resolved internally, and errors in any of those categories ultimately do not risk irreparable harm to the Wiki. This is a concern with following Scratch Community Guidelines, which does risk irreparable harm to the Wiki, and it is my duty to protect the Wiki from such harm, even if it means overriding popular opinion and invoking my administrator privileges (specifically protection) in a situation that wouldn't normally call for it. It is also unfortunate that all of you see me as a tyrannical dictator for ultimately acting to protect the Wiki, but ultimately a few things apply. First, as I said above, business concerns override all other concerns (that's why I indicated this is not up for debate, since ultimately I can explain the situation all I want). Second, the Wiki isn't a complete democracy. We try to act as democratically as possible, but sometimes EW+ have to make hard decisions that are not always popular for concerns not always fully understood by everyone involved. This is one of those decisions. I try to do this as little as possible, but ultimately it had to happen this time. jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm suprised that no one pointed this out: the knowledge is not completely removed (think page cache and history) Lovecodeabc Links: talk page | scratch profile | contributions 03:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm suprised that no one pointed this out: the knowledge is not completely removed (think page cache and history)
- Let me also make this abundantly clear, this is not just a standard content disagreement as often occurs on the Wiki. Normally the concerns in a disagreement are things like relevance, accuracy, formatting, following procedure, etc. All of those can be resolved internally, and errors in any of those categories ultimately do not risk irreparable harm to the Wiki. This is a concern with following Scratch Community Guidelines, which does risk irreparable harm to the Wiki, and it is my duty to protect the Wiki from such harm, even if it means overriding popular opinion and invoking my administrator privileges (specifically protection) in a situation that wouldn't normally call for it. It is also unfortunate that all of you see me as a tyrannical dictator for ultimately acting to protect the Wiki, but ultimately a few things apply. First, as I said above, business concerns override all other concerns (that's why I indicated this is not up for debate, since ultimately I can explain the situation all I want). Second, the Wiki isn't a complete democracy. We try to act as democratically as possible, but sometimes EW+ have to make hard decisions that are not always popular for concerns not always fully understood by everyone involved. This is one of those decisions. I try to do this as little as possible, but ultimately it had to happen this time.
Yes, I am aware that page history exists. Another admin privilege I have that I chose not to exercise is the ability to censor revisions (which would hide the page history entries). I chose not to since it is not something that the average user would come upon by chance, does not appear in Google search results, and you'd have to look pretty hard to find it if you weren't already aware of the fact that it was removed. That being said, if it is being linked to on the Scratch site, it may become necessary to censor those revisions. As for caching, there isn't anything I can do about that here or anywhere else (in fact, even on Scratch, if the Scratch Team removes anything, it may still be cached on another users' browser or an upstream CDN. jvvg (talk | contribs) 03:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Jackson49, even if it was forged by another user, it makes a point that it does cause drama, albeit the likelihood of it being forged is low due to their history of their removal of content to prevent any chance of drama, including violent FNAF projects and projects solely created for the purpose of revealing the user's face. This circumstance is no different and we must respect that no matter what. I hope you can see our reason in doing so. Also, this isn't up for debate. We are only protecting our relationship with the Scratch Team. Even I, as an Experienced Wikian, do disagree with some of their requests and actions (such as changing the default navigation bar colour), but we abided by their request to maintain a healthy relationship with them post the server transfer. 10:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- All in all, as a team of Experienced Wikians, administrators and bureaucrats, we chose to remove the endpoint from the page so that there would be little friction between the wiki and the Scratch Team. If they didn't care about it being publicised again, we might consider the allowance of adding the code back to the page. However, as we stand, doing so will damage our reputation as a wiki as a whole and not only the Experienced Wikians. We are not censoring everything, only the things we have to to ensure that we are respecting the Scratch Team's wishes. After all, whilst we are separate from Scratch, the Scratch Team relies on us to document information about Scratch, and that could be revoked at any time. Our aim is to not give them a reason to do that. 10:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lovecodeabc, we are not using our powers to win an argument because we aren't arguing, we are explicitly saying 'no full stop'. As a result, we ask you as a community to respect that our actions have been in good faith (Assume Good Faith) to protect ourselves from any encounters and incidents with the Scratch Team. 10:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lovecodeabc, we are not using our powers to win an argument because we aren't arguing, we are explicitly saying 'no full stop'. As a result, we ask you as a community to respect that our actions have been in good faith (Assume Good Faith) to protect ourselves from any encounters and incidents with the Scratch Team.
- All in all, as a team of Experienced Wikians, administrators and bureaucrats, we chose to remove the endpoint from the page so that there would be little friction between the wiki and the Scratch Team. If they didn't care about it being publicised again, we might consider the allowance of adding the code back to the page. However, as we stand, doing so will damage our reputation as a wiki as a whole and not only the Experienced Wikians. We are not censoring everything, only the things we have to to ensure that we are respecting the Scratch Team's wishes. After all, whilst we are separate from Scratch, the Scratch Team relies on us to document information about Scratch, and that could be revoked at any time. Our aim is to not give them a reason to do that.
Jvvg's already said what needs to be said - this is not a matter for debate, there is a legitimate risk of us getting delinked if we do not remove it. This topic has quickly turned into a sour flamewar-power struggle, so I have protected this talk page. The information has not been removed from page history since we believe that's inaccessible enough that the people who find it are looking for it anyway, and would therefore not be stoppable by the ST themselves either.
I am disappointed in everyone in this discussion.
kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 12:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- If the ST has a reversal through Contact Us, please post on the CP the text (and a screenshot) of the email and the username of the deciding ST member (ask them for their username if they do not provide it) so that we can verify with them that they did say what you say they did. However, until such time as the ST makes a statement, my executive order is that all discussion on this matter is banned, anywhere on the wiki. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 12:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
