Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 7:
Thanks kindly to the closers for putting so much time and thought into this, it's not like you don't have other wiki-duties. If this is on the wrong page now that the main RFC is over, please tell me where the right page is. As I mentioned above, I think the way forward is to put together working groups of like-minded people. And, I think with an issue with this much history, the much-maligned RFC process is actually useful ... without a deadline, without being able to say "Yes, that's a good argument, but I have to base my close on the arguments given during the RFC, so ...", arguments will forever sprout like [[lernean hydra|hydra]] heads. I would love to see a series of short, focused RFCs between now and November 1. To the closers: are any or all of you available to close future RFCs? To any of the Option 1 guys who are dubious concerning the close: what would you want to see in future closes that would convince you that these, or any, closers are taking your concerns seriously? (I'm not judging, I'm asking your opinions.) - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 08:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
:<small>I have archived the previous discussion, on the assumption that this talk page will be used to plan the next step for PC. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 08:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)</small>
::I think all four of us need a week or two to go do some low-profile article writing, but without speaking for the other three admins here I'm happy to help with future RfCs as necessary. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
:::While I will probably be watching future PC discussions, I don't believe I will be stepping up to close another. My feeling is that with policy-based closures like PC, you don't want the same people doing the same job on the same topic more than once. Fresh eyes and minds are important. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 17:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I personally don't plan on closing anything PC related anytime soon. Fluffy has a point about fresh eyes, this is a community target, that means fresh community eyes should be able to close a policy RfC, not putting this on a few people who now could be viewed as supporters of PC (which does not highlight an opinion as I don't have one yet), and making possible arguments for possible biased opinion. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ</font>]][[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="blue"> (ʞlɐʇ) </font>]] 01:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 133:
(Perhaps I should have split this post up into multiple sections... Meh.) --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 16:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:From purely a closer's perspective, while 61% on its face is a small minority, in this case it was over 300 people, so it's all on how you look at it. For a standard RM or RfC, assuming same strength of arguments as here I'd have no trouble declaring consensus that way. It's only a relatively few processes, such as RfA, that require more. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::It's kind of like I said above. It was a totally unacceptable close (61% isn't even enough to promote a single user to admin, let alone to make a major structural change), and the close was a supervote, since a real evaluation would've been "No consensus for the change, status quo remains." A major structural change requires ''more'' proportionally overwhelming support than an RfA or AfD, not less. But what's done is done, and we're stuck with it, because we could never get a consensus to overturn it. So let's work with what we've got and make it the best it can be. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm reminded a bit of reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Bruxner#cite_note-SMH1-0 this]; glad I did now. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::::Yet 61% is more then it takes to become an ARB, [[WP:ACE2011#Results]] and that is a straight up vote that doesn't even consider the strengths of the arguments. [[User:Monty845|<font color="Green">Monty</font>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub><font color="#A3BFBF">845</font></sub></small>]] 03:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::That's true, but it is actually billed as a straight-up vote that doesn't take into consideration any arguments. It's not masquerading as a discussion. In this case, the selected format is one that is intended to focus mainly on discussion, but the discussion was deprecated, tacked on to the bottom of the page after everyone had already expressed their opinions, without any serious attempt to address the points raised in the discussion. Just as importantly, this did not address issues raised in the *previous* discussions about the same subject, except for the comparatively minor point of whether or not to use this feature. The discussion of whether or not to use the feature should have come after "does this feature work?", "what would we use it for?", "what were the problems during the trial, and did we/how do we/can we fix them?" "what standards would be needed for this to work?" I am particularly disturbed that the closers have supported the notion of activating a feature *regardless* of whether or not the community can come to consensus on these questions. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 04:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 156:
:::::I won't hijack this thread to elaborate on my views, but I personally don't think that the idea of taking this decision to ArbCom is at all unreasonable or otherwise inane; it's fair to say that few AfD closures of comparable veracity would avoid or survive DRV. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C M B J'''''</span>]] </span> 06:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::If you feel that way, go ahead and start an RfAR; no one's holding you back. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::Moving to the talkpage is an interesting idea. But I've heard people say that BLP applies to talk pages... in which case, could you do so only if you think such an edit is consistent with BLP in the first place? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 03:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes - If a reviewer thinks a desired addition is a violation of BLP then you would just reject it and not repost it anywhere - with an edit summary of BLP violation - ( No [[WP:Reviewer]] is requested to take full responsibility for what they consider to be content that violates en wikipedia's [[WP:BLP]] policy by posting it to an en wikipedia talkpage - and that needs to be made clear to them) - I don't think any desired addition of content that is uncited should be placed on the talkpage if it is at all contentious - If contributing as a [[WP:Reviewer]] and uncited content was posted and looked worthy of addition - ''noteworthy'' I would look for a citation and add the content when I found one - [[User:Youreallycan|<span style="color:purple;">You</span>]]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can</span>]] 15:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 202:
:I've been trying to think of what we might do to keep things moving over the next 4 months, and increase the chances of a favorable reaction to our close, but with maximum guidance from the participants and minimum guidance from us. I'm going to react to what's going on from time to time; the clearer I can be, the fewer "Where did ''that'' come from?" comments I'm going to get after our final closing statement. Feel free to adopt a different style. I'm not going to push anything that you're not comfortable with, including in the final closing statement.
:I don't think we've done this before on Wikipedia, but then, I don't think we've ever done a good job of un-fubar'ing totally fubar'ed processes, so it's time to experiment. I'm thinking of encouraging people to create a page in either the form WP:Pending_changes/(your username) (with a commitment to at least participate in the main threads that arise there), <s>or in the form User:(Username)/PC (with a commitment to moderate discussions that arise there in a responsible and effective way).</s> These pages, not the main talk page, are the ones that I'd prefer to look at when trying to decide which positions seem to have enough momentum to warrant a mini-vote. That puts the burden on the participants, if they want to be heard, to take the initiative in arguing their positions and in offering reasonable compromises on the main talk page designed to attract more discussion to their personal page. Thoughts? - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 18:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::I think the subpage idea is great, because that will help make it clear exactly who's saying what. It'll make our lives that much easier, and I think other people will generally appreciate it. Your suggestion about closing and how to respond is also a good idea, in the interest of both transparency and clarity. Hopefully that will lead to less general gnashing of teeth; no guarantee it will, but it's worth trying; better to try and have it fail once than never to try at all. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
Btw, here's my problem with this page's content so far: I can't tell where we're going. People at WT:RFA have a history of coming up with ideas and then failing big-time when it comes to an RFC, but they're the exception and not the rule ... whatever you guys are interested in doing that involves PC, if we can show that we're doing something useful and making it work, there's a very good chance that the community will approve what we're doing and how PC fits into that by the time we get to October. There are many options: page protection has connections to just about everything. Page protection has an obvious connection to article reviewing, except that you're generally trying to find consensus on just one or a few questions, rather than covering everything in an article review ... so, if you want, we could pull in some successful article reviewers and see if we can make PC work as a kind of mini-article review. If you guys are into noticeboards and how they work, we can look at those boards, including obviously [[WP:Requests for page protection]]. If you're into the general question of why big RFCs seem to suck so much, we could tackle the problem of making RFCs more rational. If you want to look at specific problems with the draft version of PC mentioned by opposers in the last RFC, that works for me. Whatever you want to do is fine ... but so far, I can't tell. What I can tell you is: the people who show up and put in the effort are the people who get to make the calls. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 13:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 267:
::::::Speak for yourself and not others, YRC. I've made it [[Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll/Archive 1#Include abbreviated list from Closure page?|explicitly clear]] that, aside from RfCs and discussions on its existence, I want no part of FlaggedRevisions or derivatives thereof. This has been stated on my talkpage for a long while. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 23:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I speak for myself and the consensus - you are one of the users that has strongly opposed Pending changes - you want no part of it - so - that is fine - no problem - [[User:Youreallycan|<span style="color:purple;">You</span>]]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can</span>]] 23:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Slakr, short of presenting two shrubberies of different heights for the terrace effect and chopping down the tallest tree in the woods with a herring, <!---Note to the humor impaired; this is what's known as a joke. Please, I'm really not bothered by this, I went into this expecting it.---> I'm not sure what else we need to explain. We evaluated strength of arguments and independently came to about the same conclusion. The implementation dates are partially a request from the devs, who really don't want to have to deal with this over the holiday season; of all the people on Wikipedia, I know better than almost anyone what happens when you [[WP:ACTRIAL|anger them]], so we decided that doing something to aggravate them wasn't a good idea. And certainly you know that this isn't the same as an RfA; I'd really like you and everyone else to stop using the straw man of RfA, which has a defined, agreed-upon definition of consensus. RfCs have no such defined idea of consensus, so admins are allowed to use broad discretion. And finally, I will say this as loudly as I can, just so it's obvious; <u>'''''I DON'T PERSONALLY CARE ABOUT THE USE OF PENDING CHANGES'''''</u> <!---This section plays upon the trope of hyperbole. Again, I'm not at all flustered here.--->. That's why I signed up to close this; I've never had any opinion on it. I didn't participate at all in the voluminous discussions prior to this, as I thought I'd have no problem [[Daodejing|going along with whatever the consensus turned out to be]]. When I went to close this, I had the same basic attitude; I'd advocate to close it with whatever consensus I found. And before anyone thinks I'm losing my mind, please read the commented out sections I left; it's a sense of humor like Neil Peart describes [http://m.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=3719 here]. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::::::Thanks, Blade, for the humor. I don't think assuming bad faith on the part of the closing admins is going to get anybody anywhere, and I don't think any further discussion on that is constructive. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 23:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::LOL... a personal attack? :P I take it we haven't met before. :P If you knew my history, including my relationship with Fluffernutter and DeltaQuad (among others), you'd see that that's totally not the case. Rather, people subconsciously see things a certain way if they're already pre-disposed to it (see also: [[confirmation bias]]). It's not a character trait; it's a human psychology thing, and even ''I'm'' susceptible to it. If someone's already got an opinion on a matter, they tend to look for confirmation of it. It could particularly factor in on issues of borderline consensus; hence the reason it was even a point. Is that what's at play here? Not sure, but I nonetheless "have a feeling," mainly because of the number/outcome differences. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 03:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 345:
::Closers are not here to supervote, even for very good reasons, or to attempt to read/predict the future. They are there to determine whether or not there is sufficient consensus to implement a particular change, considering appropriately that bigger changes require a greater proportional level of support. Here, the outcome would've been an outright "fail" for an RfA, not even within discretion. Since an RfA is a much lower-magnitude change, this proposal definitively failed to gain consensus. I'm not sure why there's been such ramrodding of the PC issue both at the trial and here, and the closers of this discussion are about the last I'd ascribe bad faith to, but they're also the last I'd expect such a clearly flawed judgment from. I'm not really sure what to think of the whole thing. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 02:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:::My guess is, given that Blade has commented a few times about not pissing off the developers, that it was closed this way specifically so that the devs didn't get butthurt and so that the questions about how the RfC was organized would cease - the handlers have been criticized for this situation from Day 1. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::::I'll try again; the time frame we put on this was at the recommendation of one of the developers. That was only ''after'' we had made the major determinations, and it was literally a couple hours before we closed it that one of them suggested we stick a time on it. That's the extent of the role it played here. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
:::::By doing so, you've effectively put the cart before the horse and pretty much ensured even more questions for this close. There are substantial concerns over the fact that improving it was not an option (which would definitely have alienated several would-be !voters), and given that people have expressed that the proposed policy does nothing to address the major issues that even ''supporters'' note need worked on, it's impossible to look at the situation and not think you're doing this just to appease Devzilla. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 18:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}You are conflating two separate issues. Look closely again at the note in the RFC about improving it first, it clearly differentiates between the option of improving the ''policy'' first, which was defined as option three and was very much on the table, and improving'' the tool itself'', which costs money since the paid staff would be doing it and was not an option since they had already developed it to this point and we still were unsure if we would even use it. That being said, I would reiterate at this point that unless you plan to take this to the arbcom there is nothing to be gained by picking apart the close. It's done and there is only a small group here protesting it.Those of us that are interested in actually trying to move forward instead of backward should cease partipating in such talk and focus our efforts on resolving the issues with the policy. Otherwise we are going to end up stuck with my draft policy as all we've got. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 374:
We should host a survey or poll asking the following question: ''Are you satisfied with how the 2012 Pending Changes Request for Comment was closed? Please explain why.'' A bot should then be used to notify the participants of the RfC. The data from the survey could then be used to determine whether the 2012 RfC concluded properly and satisfactorily. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:I can already predict the rough opinion; about 310 people are going to say they were satisfied, about 180 people will say they weren't, and there will be a 15 vote swing either way. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::I guess what you mean by "survey" is a sort of RfC on the RfC. Go for it. [[User:FormerIP|Formerip]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 16:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::Yeah that will probably happen. It's unfortunate, this seemed like an obvious "no consensus" to me. '''[[User talk:Aaron Schulz|<font color="blue">Aar</font><font color="darkblue">on Sc</font><font color="black">hulz</font>]]''' 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
| |||