Wikipedia talk:Ignore Meta

Expansion

Should this essay be expanded to cover commons too? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons has some similar issues, but in my experience they are not openly hostile to users solely because they are from en.wp, and they do a very important job hosting free media, so ignoring them is a lot less of an option if you ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, can I start WP:IGNOREBEEBLEBROX? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a project, and believe me, I get ignored plenty. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, did you say something?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? I might be stating the very bloody obvious here, but with having a page like this, it's no wonder that metapedians may have negative prejudices against en.wikipedians. Just saying.. --Conti|✉ 21:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that those prejudices were built up in the last hour...though having this here now certainly isn't likely to help the relationship. --Onorem♠Dil 22:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Metapedians have nothing against en:wikipedians, they just have criticism of specific unfriendly behavior when it happens. en:wp has the largest number of editors who post angry comments on Meta, but then it is the largest community. (en.wp also boasts the largest number of active editors who are also active constructive meta contributors ;)

This page is not helpful, and I hope its creators will realize that in time, but it is unlikely to be used 'against' anyone in practical or policy discussions on Meta. – SJ + 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And those negative prejudices are completely unfounded by en.wikipedians but completely reasonable from metapedians.--v/r - TP 22:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I honestly just don't think it is worth the effort to try and change the severe systemic problems over there when so little of what they do is germane to this project anyway. Others may disagree and can continue not ignoring Meta as they desire, it's just an essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and right above the deletion discussion over there that caused so many problems is anopther request to delete Meta:Enwikipediathink which baldly asserts that it reflects the "ideology of the English Wikipedians" and is obviously comparing this project to the police state in 1984 (novel). Kept by consensus of Meta users, including a user banned from this project who described it thusly: "standard content and shouldn't even be questioned." I don't want anything to do with a project like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't even know what to say. You create a page that basically says "meta sucks!", and justify this because there's a page on meta that basically says "en.wp sucks!". The one and only thing you achieve with that is to create even more animosity between the projects. --Conti|✉ 23:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole thread just makes me sad. But the Meta page (unchanged since 2006) wasn't appropriate; I've made it more appropriately meta-. – SJ + 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see how you might have inferred that from the above discussion, but the existence of the other page on Meta is not the reason this page exists, just pointed it out in response to some of the comments above. The reason this page exists is because I truly believe that everyone will be happier if we ignore Meta. Bring up my name over there and I'm sure you won't have any trouble getting agreement on that point. Meta is there for two things: for stewards to coordinate their efforts and for resolving issues that smaller wikis can't handle. Users whose main concern is the English Wikipedia don't need to participate in any of that and its been made clear our participation is unwelcome anyway unless we are already active participants there. Again, you don't have to ignore it if they work they do interests you, but there is no pressing need for en.wp users to do anything over there unless they are stewards. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Conti. The arrogance level among some English Wikipedians here is becoming staggeringly high. --MuZemike 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Like this guy? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record: there are lots of valuable things to do on Meta: from helping develop those rare policies that affect all projects, such as the terms of use and inclusiveness policies, to planning cross-project events and collaborations like the translation of the week, to organizing cross-project entities that support this wiki (from groups scheduling events on a global calendar to requests for grants to suggestions for future wikipedia strategy)... to translation of important documents into english (like the cool wikipedia programs happening in other language wikipedias that could be applied to en:wp), to helping with any administrative or governance work, from ombudsmanning to blacklisting to building great presentations about WP... to sharing problems that en:wp is facing which might have been solved elsewhere. As well as steward coordination and small-wiki support. – SJ + 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral message

I've rewritten the page to be a more neutral and mature message. Feel free to revert, but I think this explains the position better.--v/r - TP 01:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As an admin here, there, and twice elsewhere, I actually find this document both a blunt instrument, lacking in nuance, POV and misrepresenting the situation. I do not disagree that events have occurred, nor that the situation is rosy. I have reflected on some of the approaches taken by Wikipedians at another WP page, and do not wish to harp on about that here, beyond "it takes two to have a shouting match". — billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with billinghurst. This seems to be an emotional reaction to a problem in which both Meta and Enwiki members share fault in being to argumentative, not understanding enough of each other, and unwilling to compromise. I am pretty certain that native EnWikipedians who have more than a passing familiarity with Meta would disagree. For what it is worth, I share billinghurst's wikimedia experience in being an admin (as well as some other maintenance roles) on EnWIki AND Meta and one other project. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

With either of you taking the lead, I'm not opposed to some fashion of working this out. I'm not just interesting in paying them any attention until then. I will say that as a Wiki intended for cross-project coordination, I'd expect more tolerance of our culture from them than vice versa. Just my two cents. On another note, Avi, I'm not opposed to you having an "opposed" section on the page. I dont know about others. I don't think it'll have much effect, because it's a personal choice, other than registering your disagreement which suits fine with me.--v/r - TP 19:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, TParis. In general, I agree that the vast majority of what Meta does has no bearing on EnWIki, and when people like Mbz try to drum up drama there, it's best to just ignore her. What concerns me is the "formalization" of a decree to "actively ignore" the central Wikimedia project. While de facto most Wikipedians can ignore the goings on in Meta (unless they are interested in cross-wiki work), to make it de jure to ignore most everything in Meta strikes me as more harm than good, which is why I disagree with this essay. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In a wiki-culture where nobody is accountble, where the good admins are so willing to ignore outrageous trolling and abuse of tools by the bad admins, users who are used to having some minimum standards for how the administration is expected to behave, i.e. not insulting people in response to a politely worded request for technical assisitance, are not going to have a positive experience. When you add the veritable parade of banned trolls and miscreants from this project who are waiting in line to bash any user or idea from en.wp, a negative experience is guaranteed. Maybe someday Meta will get its house in order and will have some relevance again, but at the moment it appears the inmates are running the asylum. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In that I have to disagree with you. I would rather say, using your analogy, that the inmates are allowed to rant and rave, but have very little effect on the actual running of the asylum. Also, without going over every post, every statement, every counter-statement, I would say there was not so much "trolling" but a lack of courtesy on all sides. Then again, this is just my opinion from my limited interactions on both projects. I certainly admit to being unaware of EVERY statement. Lastly, even if there was perceived trolling, unless it is of the most juvenile type, I find that teasing out whatever content is there, and ignoring the trolling noise, does more to minimize future trolling than anything else. In other words, DFTT, and by Troll, I don't mean the person as a whole, who (especially if they are an admin) is most probably not a true troll, but just the wording and formulation that one views as "trollish". -- Avi (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The convential definition of trolling is something like "any comment deliberately designed to upset users or inflame a situation" the case for trolling is of course stronger if the user was not previously involved in the discussion and butted in with such a comment. So, when I added a request for help with some technical stuff to my talk page, I expected, you know, help. My request was not a request for advocacy or anything, I was just having trouble understanding a technical issue and asked for help. The only reply I got was a direct insult from an administrator. That, my friends, is trolling. And when I asked what to do about being trolled by an admin, I was told I had it coming for making such a proposal, and that the personal insult was just an answer to my help request. I can't work under those conditions, and luckily I don't have to. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

History of Meta-Wiki

I think it would help if there were a better understanding of Meta-Wiki and its history. A lot of people don't realize just how old Meta-Wiki is and what its original purpose was.

I don't necessarily disagree with the general advice that contributors ignore Meta-Wiki. It's obviously a "backstage" project that most users (readers and editors alike) have no need to involve themselves with. But it's also a central site for a large number of projects and tools, so to ignore it completely would not serve many (active) users well. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Letting a few isolated incidents spoil things

In my capacity as a staff member, I just want to point out a few reasons that you should definitely not be ignoring Meta...

1. Meta is a place to get help. Notice a cross-wiki spammer that needs global locking? Go ask the stewards. Want to figure out how to get a help guide translated? Meta is the place.
2. Meta is one of the best places to find out what the Foundation is mucking with. Tech stuff usually lives on mediawiki.org, but all research and many other programs run at the Foundation are documented on Meta, and poking a Meta talk page about a project is often one of the best ways to get the attention of staff. (Example: want to know how much we spent on something? Just go ask.).
3. Talking to the global community on Meta can protect EN. Yeah, you might run into problems with some local admins. But if you want say, get an incredibly dangerous sockpuppeteer globally blocked, Meta is the only place to do so.

In short, Meta is extremely useful if you care at all about say... meta stuff. Yeah, it's open to trolling too sometimes, but what small wiki isn't? Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the close relationship with the Foundation you asserted above at #2, I'd have thought the WMF would pay a closer attention to whom it hands over various authority bits on meta. Having an admin and 'crat there go out with a bang after promising to resort to vandalism is a little concerning, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't hand out user rights on Meta. There's an RfA process just like everywhere else. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I did make sure to mention when drafting this that combatting cross-wiki vandalism is in fact a very important function of Meta. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven - the RFA process on Meta is a joke in comparison to the RFA process on the English Wikipedia. And the further scrutiny that our Arb go through make any claim that Meta is a higher dispute resolution process above the English Wikipedia laughable and absurd. I knew other projects reside there, but this pledge is more about ignoring Meta's opinion on matters relating to the English Wikipedia's policies and users rather than ignoring projects the WMF supports.--v/r - TP 01:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would we need any essay telling 'pedians to ignore Meta's opinion about goings-on here? That's SOP. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well said, Steven. Wnt (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have problems with this essay but the very odd thing is Steven Walling mentions nothing about the: Metapedia essays, rfc stuff, and the generally not functional (as in does not serve a function) stuff. I take it it's generally irrelevant? Then get rid of all that stuff, or reduce it to essentials, so admins over there won't be distracted, since it sounds like they have a lot on their plate (and they don't like dealing with what comes with it anyway). And then it can't be a source of friction between the Projects. What a waste of the Foundation's volunteer's time and resources. But whatever it is it's not serving as a place for communication and cooperation among projects and it's just not good at it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree the RFC involved etc. should just have been done away with. But when English Wikipedians come to Meta and throw their weight around, people who come from other communities are often defensive about it. We need to be cogent of the fact that we look like the 800 pound gorilla to people not from enwp, especially when you want something deleted... Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I keep hearing that from everyone, but I am unclear on why that makes it ok for them to act like petty thugs ruling their turf, And why it is ok for an admin to troll a user talk pagein response to legitimate, politely worded request for help with a technical issue The fact that I came there from this project does not automatically invalidate anything I have to say. I can see that there are some decent admins here, but they and the rest of the regulas are unwillimg to do anything when one of their own is bullying outsiders. You know as well as I do that that is not ok and nothing excuses it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven, That's kinda the point, no friction if everyone just focuses on their own knitting. But, if Meta is gonna host communication, it should probably be excellent at communication, which it is not and does not appear to have the time to be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox: and suddenly you know how it feels to be a newbie on English Wikipedia. ;) Alan: point well made. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven, Like everyone else I was a newbie here myself at one point. And I've had to use {{helpme}} on numerous occasions because I am not knowledgable about coding and other technical stuff. Every time I've done that here, be it as a newbie or more recently, I have gotten a reply from another user who actually tried to help me. The one time I used it at meta I got trolled by an admin. So, no, not the same experience. If I did that as admin here I would fully expect to be blocked or even have my tools yanked for it. I really do appreciate that they feell like we "invaded" their site, but it doesn't excuse the trolling and the extreme abuse of administrative authority. As meta uses seem uninterested in rectifying this problem I am therefore advocating ignoring all the stuff that goes on there that is not related to fighting cross-wiki abuse or determining who is to be a steward. I do not count myself among those who feel meta should be shut down entirely, stewards undeniably do an important job and they need a place to coordinate their efforts, but much of the rest of meta is a sea of en.wp bashing that we are better off not acknowledging. I may try to clean this up to clarify these points once the current firestorm has subsided a bit,, for the moment I really think we should all give this issue a rest, it's only fanning the flames with you-know-whos continued trolling and disruption over there, which is, ironically, what we were trying to put a stop to in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been a newbie here in 2007, right? And I was a newbie here in 2011, admittedly after four years experience on ru.wp. And things changed WAY too much in four years. I actually found the environment rather hostile (this is why I try to keep myself above 98% in the article namespace, and I only work on topics nobody else works), and the policies overcomplicated and difficult to understand.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You're free to ignore meta, of course, and you are right, meta is largely irrelevant for en.wp. Meta is far more important for the smaller wikis, not for those that are big enough to take care of their own problems. You're also right that the conversation on your talk page was less than ideal, but I've seen similar comments made by admins on recently blocked user talk pages countless times here on en.wp. Especially after said users quite blatantly violated WP:NPA. I'm not trying to justify such behavior, but I strongly disagree that such behavior would not occur here on en.wp. And, frankly, it's you who is fanning the flames here with this very page. --Conti|✉ 21:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By the way, Steven, I've used the same template on meta to ask about translations and I was given wrong information by the same "helpful" admin [1]. It turns out RfCs on meta can be translated after all. At least he proposal part was. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

I don't really have an opinion on this matter, and am not entirely aware of the circumstances surrounding the latest rift between the two projects, but I have a few question. Why can't Meta just be a coordination center for the various Wikimedia wikis? Why does it need to have its own administrators and bureaucrats? Couldn't administrators and bureaucrats from other wikis automatically be given those user rights on Meta? This might make things simpler, friendlier, and quicker, though I can see the issue with too many editors with these user rights floating about. dci | TALK 20:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a question you would need to ask at Meta. Be prepared to be met with derision and insults if you decide to do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone proposed to make an "InstantMeta" of that kind. The proposal was shut down withing the hour, then reopened and closed again only a few hours later. So, yeah, discussing radical meta-wiki reforms on meta seems pretty pointless. We should be lucky if they adopt a policy on WP:INVOLVED admins to stem the worst abuses. See m:Meta:Proposal for a policy on involved administrators for that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposals that radically change how the wiki works are shut down swiftly, no matter the wiki. --Conti|✉ 02:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer the original question: admins on Meta are a subset of what you describe. Every admin on Meta is an admin, bureaucrat, or checkuser on at least one other wiki. They are also expected to be reasonably active on Meta, and to understand its functions -- as with any wiki community there are policies and standards to uphold. Among others: Meta does not privilege the policies of any other wiki; it is a freeform space for writing and translation related to the projects, or asking for help; it avoids excessive bureaucracy.

But any admin on another sizeable wiki that desires to be an admin on meta can become one with a little interest and effort. – SJ + 19:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Snipped sentences re: impact of policy discussions at Meta-Wiki

Hi. I snipped these lines from the subject-space page just now:

The other discussions they have about policy are not binding on any project with its own policies and dispute resolution procedures, so they have literally no impact on this project.

I'm not sure this is strictly true. Global policies have been discussed and debated at Meta-Wiki, and as far as I'm aware, these global policies apply to the English Wikipedia. It's true that often the English Wikipedia and other large wikis receive an exemption from these policies, but that distinction should be made clearer, rather than attempting to discourage people to get involved in these discussions, in my opinion.

For most users, it's okay to ignore Meta-Wiki. Most users will ignore Meta-Wiki regardless of advocacy to be involved there or not. But that doesn't mean that everyone should ignore Meta-Wiki. As someone who has participated in discussions at Meta-Wiki, it very much helps to have opinions from many projects, including this project (the largest and most well-known). We don't really want to discourage that. Even if these policies ultimately have exemptions for this project, we want smart and sensible users from every project to participate so that the global policies that are created are fair and reasonable. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I just stuck my nose onto the wrong corner, but my experience there was that en.wp users were being treated as if their opinions were very much not welcome or appreciated in a discussion that was actually about this project, to the point where the local admins were not allowing any discussion they did not like to take place, regardless of policy. I do like what you added about how you can't get anything done there if you are not already a meta admin. It's a sad state of affairs though. They never even made a decision on whether or not to have an involved admin policy, which could have prevented all the bad blood from earlier this year. I hadn't looked at it (since I've been following my own advice on the subject) but it appears the discussion showed broad support for such an idea but no action was ever taken and the issue is still unresolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Where this essay has its own issues

Where this essay fails is that:

1. with all the reputed approach about Wikipedia(ns) and a NPOV, this essay is clearly not. It has excessive elements of emotive words and clear PoV and evocative judgements about others.
2. it forgets to mention that meta as a coordinating wiki, is clearly not a content wiki; such its purpose is not to resolve issues as they are province of the individual communities. BUT it is a place where those who have become outcasts of a community can express their issues, and where it relates to outcasts from a small community it fulfils an important function. Naturally that functionality is degraded for larger wikis with more sophisticated processes, though it enables a conversation to take place so that the "banned" can contribute.
3. Large wikis fall outside of the active administrative scope of meta, and are meant to, especially enWP as it has an Arbitration Committee (indicative of a diverse and complex community). You don't require assistance from meta in general measures. [Aside ... that said, if someone wants to complain about enWP at meta, that is within scope, as long the discussion is kept with the boundaries of decency, fair play, ... That the discussion will come to nought is of no concern to meta, let the bitter people talk! complain! whine! while the busy get on with productive work.]
4. "Dispute resolution"? At meta?!? That is not the purpose of meta, and it doesn't profess it. It would be better to expressly say that in this essay, rather than the snide comment about it being badly broken. Dispute resolution as a product doesn't formally exist at meta to even get broken.
5. it does not well reflect that meta has to consider all WMF wikis, and their scopes, and all their users. Whereas enWP has its more restricted scope; so meta's rules and guidance have to be broader and more accommodating than a single scope wiki.
6. meta administrators roles are a different skill set, a different role task; they are not their to resolve single wiki issues.
7. some of the friction comes from expectations and the attitudes brought by participants, and it would help if the essay was able to express both sides of the situation. Frictions would always be best left outside. Fractious statements like that are made in the essay hardly are going to ease the way, and maybe a less combative approach would have some value. Who is going to keep themselves nice first?

Plus do you really mean ...[T]he problem is that the English Wikipedia is far and away the largest Wikimedia project ... Really?

That aside it was an enjoyable read. It has highlighted to me that meta does not well expressing its purpose to Wikipedians, and I have started a discussion at meta to see if we are better able to have that occur.

Declaration of interest: I am an admin here, there, and elsewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

meta:Meta:For Wikipedians

Hello! Maybe some of the people here can contribute to the guide on the differences between Meta and Wikipedia. Please keep it neutral. πr² (t • c) 03:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't need to be completely neutral, but don't write a bunch of comments against Meta there. That's not the place to have this discussion. πr² (t • c) 03:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts on how to respond to Ignore Meta

I was asked what I thought about this. My first thoughts are that, if this didn't exist, I wouldn't know that "meta" existed. Does meta exist? Does meta often make changes to English Wikipedia?

Ever?

Make sure that it doesn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This page was made in response to discussions and "polls" being made on Meta by users that are banned here on English Wikipedia. These discussions were being used to verbally attack and abuse English Wikipedia editors. Complaints were made to the Meta admins about this and they did absolutely nothing about it, several even stating they didn't have a problem with such attack discussions and then going off on how "English Wikipedia doesn't control all the other Wikipedias". As you can imagine, things only got worse from there and several of us became fed up with Meta and its admins, especially since it is pretty much useless for anything, and then went and created this page. Silverseren^C 09:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I must confess I did not entirely follow my own advice. I had to log in to Meta to participate in this year's steward elections, and I had a look at some of the pages related to the debacle that got this whole thing going. For a minute there it seemed like absolutely nothing had changed. After more unpleasantness and trolling by an admin, they finally did at least formally adopt an "involved admin" policy and eventually the other of the two most abusive admins was desysopped. So, that's a small ray of hope that there are some folks there who are not only reasonable but have the courage and fortitude to call out and deal with abuses by one of their own. I've just toned down or removed a few parts of this in light of these events. However, the basic premise of the essay, that the meta community has little to no relevance to this project, remains sound. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Move, not merge, Meta to the Commons

Please see discussion here:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move, not merge, Meta to the Commons --Timeshifter (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Archived here:

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 103#Move, not merge, Meta to the Commons --Timeshifter (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at those discussions, it seems not one single person supported your proposal. And you've been asked to stop introducing the same material into this essay, which is about cultural, not technical, issues with meta. As I suggested on your talk page and Demiurge suggested in their edit summary, this may be an appropriate topic for a separate essay, but it is not really related to the issues that this essay talk about. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Only a few people participated in that discussion, and they were all Meta regulars from what I could tell. So I am not surprised they all opposed the idea. I was not surprised at all by that. What really interested me though was the almost total lack of interest by people outside Meta. It is funny that with all the bullshit self-importance of the Meta regulars, and the WMF staff that participate there, how almost totally irrelevant they are to Wikipedia editors.

If you don't get that, then you have drank the koolaid again at Meta. And are you that clueless or lacking in reading comprehension that you think I was promoting the same thing in the Village Pump discussion? Read the topic of that Village Pump discussion.

In your edit comment you say you do not own this essay, but you deleted a section that has been here since July 2012. So you are lying that you don't own it, or dissembling at the very least.

You started this essay, and so I understand you feel you own it. But I have worked on several essays in Wikipedia space, and we allow all significant viewpoints on essays in Wikipedia space. I suggest you move this essay to your user space. Otherwise, if you continue to WP:OWN it, then I may seek a deletion discussion. I have essays on my user space too. I like being able to control my essays too. I also like though some of the collaborative essays I work on. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

IWell, I would normally be happy to discuss this with you, but since you have chosen to insult my intelligence and call me a liar instead of responding to my actual point I can't say I see much hope for resolving this between ourselves. Unless you would care to change your tone, and maybe strike out the personal attacks you just made. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Technical challenges

The section that was here since July 2012:

Technical challenges

Much of the frustration that people have with Meta-Wiki is its lack of integration with the English Wikipedia. Better tools, such as unified watchlists and interwiki transclusion, could greatly help in this regard.

The "Technical challenges" section after some preliminary editing on my part:

Much of the frustration that people have with Meta-Wiki is its lack of integration with English Wikipedia. Better tools, such as unified watchlists and interwiki transclusion, could greatly help in this regard. Due to the lack of the long-requested watchlist integration between English Wikipedia and Meta, few but the Meta regulars continue checking up on Meta discussions via the separate Meta watchlist. Most people ignore Meta due to these technical reasons. This technical isolation further limits the horizons of Meta regulars, such that Meta regulars become more of an inbred community that effectively ignores the opinions of many English Wikipedia users. It is a vicious cycle based on most people having little choice but to ignore each other. Who wants to check multiple watchlists on wikis they are not regulars at?

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You choose to insult my ability to comprehend what you wrote, yet you seem completely unaware of the central premise of this essay. Why would an essay arguing to ignore something turn and argue that we need better ways to pay attention to the thing we are trying to ignore? Think about it, and you will see that it simply does not make sense to have that content in this particular essay. I do not feel I own this, many others have edited it at this point and refined the message. What you are doing is adding a completely different message on a different topic than the one that is the subject of this essay. That is why I and others have been removing it and why it should never have been there in the first place, no ,matter how long it actually was there. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? I made the effort. Fine, I am removing this essay and talk page from my watchlist. I have learned long ago to ignore articles and wikis where the editors spend more time trying to justify their points of view rather than try to understand others points of view. Read my user page, and see how I deal with such situations. I leave info on the article talk pages and move on to other articles, and to more cooperative people. And I see you are an admin. It is no wonder there is a continual decline in the number of active editors. Don't bother writing messages on my talk page. I am not interested. I don't have the time. I usually don't give rude people a second chance anymore. Rudeness broadly defined, as in your reversion of longstanding info, your WP:OWNership, and by your whole general uncooperative attitude. I am following your advice. I am now ignoring you in the full meaning of the word. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Social challenges

I realise this is marked as historical, but what is "Much like Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki is one of those places where it's nearly essential to first become an administrator before trying to do anything useful." supposed to mean? --SHB2000 (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)