Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Seeking closure for RfC

Hi all, I appreciate everyone's participation and feedback here. Now that the RfC has concluded and was on WP:CENT for a substantial time, I have sought help from an impartial bureaucrat at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Request_to_close_discussion_at_Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship to close the discussion taking everyone's views into account. I think a bureaucrat closure is most appropriate here since, if approved, the process would commit bureaucrats to involvement. Please let me know if you have any issues with this request. Dcoetzee 08:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

All crats are admins, so I don't see a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Relist: Only 108 respondents - too few for a quorum and/or a clear consensus on an issue of this importance. Note - 154 edits from proposer badgering those who opposed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if there is consensus anyway, I get a raw count of 60 in favor and 30 against. Unlikely a crat will find consensus. That wouldn't be enough to hand out the bits so why should it be enough to change the procedure?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty much at the borderline, at 66.6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666∞ according to the 2:1 ratio shown. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 19:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Try counting again Ebe, and remember that a consensus gathering debate is not assessed on a tally. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I said based on Wehwalt's 60/30. Not the real thing. Also, I missed only 18 people then. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 19:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is consensus in favor of reopening discussion for a longer period of time than the standard RfC length for wider participation, I would be open to that. However, at the time of the RfC closing it had received only one more response in a whole week, so I doubt we'd get a lot more people commenting unless we found some other way of advertising it. My responses (to both supporters and opposers) were intended to discuss and resolve concerns and issues relevant to the proposal. I've striven to be polite and open to suggestions and would not characterise my behavior as badgering. Dcoetzee 21:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the Signpost, but I think there needs to be something more, like RFC bot or a watchlist notice.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A (pre-close?) view

Hi Dcoetzee. I do apologise if my use of the word 'badger' caused offense and certainly none was intended, nevertheless, a thesaurus comes up with deny, contradict, controvert, repudiate, counter, attempt to refute, attempt to discredit; poke holes in; gainsay, rebut - take your pick, but please rest assured that even as your main political adversary, as one of the major proponents for RfA reform, I sit with you on the reformist benches, and I sincerely esteem the initiative you have taken with your proposal - the experience it has brought to the topic of adminship is of immense value. I am indeed probably your major detractor however, because I firmly believe that this is not the answer to the problem(s). That said, this RfC as it stands is, IMHO, flawed on several counts:

1. You have 157 edits to this page whereas I have made only 17 comments including my main !vote - just imagine what this debate would have looked like if I had rebutted every one of the 'support' !votes. 2. The page was subscribed by only 108 editors, including the pre-RfC discussion; that's far from a realistic number for a proposal of this scope that constitutes a major change to one of Wikipedia's most important offices (if not the most important). Less important, but nevertheless significant issues such as WP:BLPPROD and WP:ACTRIAL attracted participation from around 500 editors; any consensus either way for this proposal is going to be a close call and on a margin of only a handful of !votes/comments that may not accurately reflect the opinion of a broader response from the community. 3. The proposal was modified many times as the discussion progressed, thus earlier comments may not necessarily reflect the changes that were made. 4. A discussion of this kind will almost certainly have been supported by a faction of new and/or inexperienced users who see the proposal as a fast-track to trophies, thus the integrity of the result is also debatable. Just for example, if I were to launch a proposal to make NPP a user right (which I might well do in the near future) the result is almost certainly going to be partially clouded by new and inexperienced opposers who will see their flag-free access to an important policy function restricted by a new rule, but I would hope - and would do my best to ensure - that participation would be on a grand scale.

Summa summarum I think you have three choices: Abandon the debate, extend it with more exposure, or join the WP:RFA2011 task force that already has around half the number of participants as took part in this RfC and of whom the majority are highly experienced users, and the support (but not the direct intervention) of Wales and the WMF; the past 9 months have been dedicated to a vast amount of research and idea gathering and in 2012 the project will go firmly ahead with some of the proposals that have been suggested, and they will most likely generate a lot of on- and off-Wiki discussion and will be heavily subscribed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I resent the questioning of Dcoetzee's conduct and of the competence of those who have participated in this. That is not on. I also observe that those three choices resort to "no", "wait, and if enough people stay away then we default to no", and "this discussion is invalid, as it didn't have RFA2011's explicit permission". But as strongly as I chastise Kudpung for these things, I have to grudgingly agree that it is a little premature to go ahead with this trial, because of the extent of the changes made during the RfC.

Nonetheless, I think the discussion has been very constructive. For all its good intentions, RFA2011 is around 9 months old. And while acknowledging a lot of commendable work, it hasn't done much. By contrast, in the space of around 6 weeks Dcoetzee has created the meat of something tangible, with a level of community input that no individual proposal at RFA2011 has seen. I applaud Dcoetzee for that, and urge the closer to explicitly acknowledge the effort and progress that has gone into this.

Now is the time to reflect on concerns that have been made from the open minded segment of the opposition, and consider how to make use of this input going forward. —WFC— 18:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung:

Oh goodness. You're Dcoetzee's "main political adversary"? Thank you for demonstrating how you see steps toward improving the wiki— as politics. Regarding your points:

1. I think, actually, that it was D's immediate and civil responses that convinced people, or at least myself, that he was committed to making this work.
2. This is true. Your framing of adminship as "the most important office" is somewhat alarming nevertheless. Aren't we supposed to be striving toward making it a less sacred role, and the process itself more approachable?
3. Also true, although from what I can see most of the changes have been toward conservatism.
4. Seriously? In any real-world election there are people who are voting for extremely silly reasons, or who have barely qualified to vote as migrants, et cetera. That doesn't discount their votes. In our consensus-based model, we already have the liberty to discount nonsensical votes and consider quality instead of quantity. Making it clear that you regard the less experienced of our editors with suspicion of being hat-collectors and do not feel they have useful contributions to policy discussions is especially alarming in the face of the fact that you have apparently collaborated with the foundation on editor retention issues.

Your three choices amount to "give up", "we'll talk you into giving up later", and "join us so we get the credit if RfA becomes improved." You're not very good at disguising the "but RFA2011 was supposed to fix RfA, not other isolated proposals!" sentiment, which I assume is what makes D your "political adversary".

I'll note, lest I too be accused of "badgering", that my interest in this proposal is simply because it is some change that is practical and measurable. My comment in this discussion shows my initial doubt; my later rebuttals of opposition were because I can see where this is coming from, and feel it deserves a fair go; this comment is simply because I can't tolerate misrepresentation to this degree. While I agree that a broader consensus is needed for a change of this scale, I note that this discussion has gotten closer to significant change than RFA2011 has (not to mention that it's now 2012 UTC, and there's still been little but inaction.) sonia♫ 00:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with much of that, although not the comments re Kudpung. This proposal has most likely failed, for now, but it has come within relative spitting distance of arguable success. That isn't easy at a place so hidebound as Wikipedia and Dcoetzee is due much credit for that. That is why I advise several months to absorb the views on this page. It is possible it could gain very clear consensus next time. I'm not promising support, but I know how things tend to go on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never denied that this was a valuable exercise. My comment is in no way a misrepresentation of facts, and is not a plug for WP:RFA2011 whose activities, or what its detractors consider to be a lack of, I have clearly explained. Perhaps some of the commentators could AGF on the work of that project instead of merely trying to read between the lines and misrepresent my semantics. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are to be applauded too Kudpung. It is important that every aspect of this be examined and questioned. I still think it is a bad idea; either way this has been a good and important exercise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I know a thing or two about successful proposals myself. I agree that there needs to be a period of reflection, and the second proposal will need to clearly demonstrate what has been learnt from the first attempt. But far more important than any suggested time frame is for the proposer(s) to have a clear understanding of what their objectives from the pause are, and to not under any circumstances re-launch until those have been met. That process can often take months, but can just as easily happen in a matter of two or three weeks. —WFC— 22:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, a bit of hyperbole there, but my point is that it needn't take as near as makes no difference a calendar year. —WFC— 22:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Four to six months I would say.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that's often typical. My point is that far more important than quantifying a minimum timeframe is how the intervening time is used. Given the way this has developed thus far, it wouldn't surprise me if this reached maturity faster than that.

Kudpung: RFA2011 explicitly rules discussions of this nature out under its umbrella. Indeed, you set those parameters yourself [1]. I don't criticise you for bringing focus to that discussion. But having taken such a pro-active role in one reform process, you need to recognise just how loaded your criticism of the running of an alternative looks. While I might be wrong, it is in that context that I reached the conclusions above, and I therefore ask you to retract the inference that I'm not assuming good faith. —WFC— 23:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if I was its creator (someone had to start the first page) or the most active participant, I do not claim ownership of RFA2011 - the founding of the project was a collaborative effort and all contents are by discussed, or tacit agreement of the founding parties and/or those who joined it later. Ironically, one 'pro-active' move I made (without consensus) was to create the section WP:RFA/RADICAL to plug that very gap in the project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Closure: final statement

The proposal has been closed as "no consensus," a reasonable decision based on the discussion, and no further action will be taken with regard to this specific proposal, which will be archived in its current state. It's okay that it wasn't closed by a bureaucrat, in this case, since bureaucrat participation won't be required. I'm really glad we got strong participation from so many motivated community members, and I hope this discussion will help inform future proposals and reforms by both myself and others. If you have a related proposal, feel free to advertise it on this page - and I invite people interested in related proposals to keep it watchlisted. I also invite anyone who is interested to voice their final closing thoughts in this section. Dcoetzee 10:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Entirely confused by the closing statement, but I do agree that that was probably the correct close. sonia♫ 04:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposal was too vague to be successful. You should have proposed creation of specific usergroups with clear sets of userrights assigned to them. Each usergroup should have had a clear explanation of why it was needed. Ruslik_Zero 13:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. My future plans involve the proposal of a single new user group targeted at a particular task for which there is a clear and present need, such as speedy deletion, with the relevant subcommunity establishing clear requirements and policy for the new group. This seems like a smaller and more focused step to take. Dcoetzee 21:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)