This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taking Out The Trash (talk | contribs) at 02:39, 13 February 2023 (→RFA: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:39, 13 February 2023 by Taking Out The Trash (talk | contribs) (→RFA: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Archives:
ProcBot II
Hi ProcrastinatingReader, have you retired ProcBot II? Came across it on the 'inactive' edit filter managers review. — xaosflux 15:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi - not retired but currently not running. I disabled it on my server to free up some resources. I'm aiming to have it migrated to WMCS (I have a cloud server setup but there are some quirks with the ProcBot II's Docker image. I'm hoping to have time over Christmas to fix it up). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Contentious topics procedure adopted
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.
The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.
The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.
This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted
Happy Holidays
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC) |
Contentious topics procedure now in effect
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.
In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.
- For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
- A brief guide for administrators may be found at Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
- Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
- Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.
The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect
Review of your closure
Hello. I want to strongly request that you and ScottishFinnishRadish's dress your incorrect reading of the consensus in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Deployment_of_Vector_(2022)#Discussion. The RFC did not show a clear support in favor of the proposal at all, but rather strongly divided opinion. Likewise your closure's claim that deployment had consensus from the community if concerns were addressed is just not true. The vast majority of the opposers never indicated a conditional support. They opposed entirely. Your incorrect closure already had a serious negative impact on this project and you should now take this step in the chain of setting things straight.Tvx1 17:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- We didn't say that it showed clear support in favor at the time. What we said was
The most substantial concern, and the only clear blocker, was the issue of fixed-width. The idea of using a community-maintained gadget is deemed insufficient. It should be possible to achieve a full-width experience using a WMF-maintained toggle, which is clearly visible and available to both logged-out and logged-in users. There were also notable concerns about non-intuitive icons in the sticky header and the behaviour of the language selector, which we believe need to be addressed to achieve a firm consensus. If all the concerns outlined above are satisfactorily addressed then we see community support to roll out the change
- Looking back at the discussions PR and myself had via email, and rereading parts of the RFC, I still feel very comfortable with the close. A quick gander at the first third of opposes shows at least 15 responses where their opposition was based specifically on the fixed width issue. Looking at just those, not even the full number that exist in the opposes, or the opposes that have some concerns other than fixed width, that brings the support/oppose ratio to 169 to 150.
- If
all the concerns outlined above satisfactorily addressed
, then there would have been a firm consensus. That the concerns were not satisfactorily addressed andthe Web team wishes to roll out without addressing one of the above issues
withouteither a specific discussion on that issue or a second RfC as they originally planned
is not an issue with the close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Looking at just those, not even the full number that exist in the opposes, or the opposes that have some concerns other than fixed width, that brings the support/oppose ratio to 169 to 150.
I have great respect for you both PR and SFR, as excellent wikipedians whose judgment I trust. But in this instance, I do have to ask: do you think there is any other discussion with this wide-ranging of an impact, without WMF involvement, where 169 to 150 would have come out realistically as anything other than no-consensus? A lot of those Opp votes had individual and important concerns which were not addressed with these remedies. — Shibbolethink 18:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)- As I said, that was looking at the first third of opposes, not the whole list. That is also why we included the language that we did about addressing the other concerns, and if not addressing them to conduct further discussions or RFCs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I respect your closures in general and here, even if I disagree with the result. More than anything, I appreciate the difficulty of the position you're in. — Shibbolethink 19:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- As Dumuzid always says, reasonable people can disagree. I appreciate you, and Tvx reaching out, and trust me that an incredible amount of consideration went into the close, and into the current situation. For example, perhaps stronger wording than "encourage" could have prevented this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Are you actually mocking us now? The very first sentence of your closure reads "Overall, there is a positive reception to the changes.", yet you genuinely claim here that you didn't state that their was a clear support??? The only correct reading here is that overall there was a strongly divided reaction to the proposed new skin. And how can you genuinely claim that an incredible amount of consideration went into this close shortly after you admitted having only looked at a third of the opposes. Moreover you are morphing numbers by personally numbers by assuming that people would have automatically supported if some concerns were addressed. That's literally make decision in place of other people. If you have any respect for the community you would correct the clear errors in your close as soon as possible.Tvx1 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you didn't fully read my above comments, which is the only reason I can think why you would believe that I only read a third of the comments when closing the RFC.
Looking back at the discussions PR and myself had via email, and rereading parts of the RFC, I still feel very comfortable with the close. A quick gander at the first third of opposes shows at least 15 responses where their opposition was based specifically on the fixed width issue.
parses, to me, that I took a quick gander of the first third of opposes while rereading parts of the RFC. Two months ago, when closing the RFC, I read the entire discussion, including the discussions below the survey multiple times. That is likely why I read the positive reception included in many of the opposes. - Much like not reading my statement above fully, not reading the entirety of the RFC close might leave you with the impression that we said there was clear support. Luckily, we had access to more words than we used in the first sentence, and went on to explain what the main blockers to consensus were, and that they would need to be addressed satisfactorily to achieve consensus. We then elaborated
We encourage the Web team to be sure they have addressed the community’s concerns on these issues before moving forward. If the Web team wishes to roll out without addressing one of the above issues then we would encourage either a specific discussion on that issue or a second RfC as they originally planned.
- Considering and weighing responses and arguments is part of closing RFCs, which is why they're WP:NOTAVOTE. If concerns causing editors to disagree are satisfactorily addressed, that would lead to consensus.
- If a group is trying to decide on what to eat, half say pepperoni pizza is fine, a quarter say pizza is fine but they don't want pepperoni, and a quarter either don't want pizza or want different toppings, that does not mean there is a consensus against pizza. In fact, one might even say that if the pepperoni issue was resolved to the satisfaction of a number of the group, that there would be a consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Now matter how you keep spinning it, there never was an "overall positive reception to the changes". The reception was strongly divided and thus your closure's first sentence is blatantly wrong. And the opposers did not generaly state that they would support if the issues were fixed. These characterizations are patently false and therefore I will again insist that you change these patently incorrect conclusions in your close as soon as possible. Tvx1 22:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
If a group is trying to decide on what to eat, half say pepperoni pizza is fine, a quarter say pizza is fine but they don't want pepperoni, and a quarter either don't want pizza or want different toppings, that does not mean there is a consensus against pizza. In fact, one might even say that if the pepperoni issue was resolved to the satisfaction of a number of the group, that there would be a consensus
no there would not, you would either get everyone what they wanted (which we cant do here due to technical issues) or find something else that more people would like, either way, this would mean that you shouldn't hold a pizza party Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you didn't fully read my above comments, which is the only reason I can think why you would believe that I only read a third of the comments when closing the RFC.
- Are you actually mocking us now? The very first sentence of your closure reads "Overall, there is a positive reception to the changes.", yet you genuinely claim here that you didn't state that their was a clear support??? The only correct reading here is that overall there was a strongly divided reaction to the proposed new skin. And how can you genuinely claim that an incredible amount of consideration went into this close shortly after you admitted having only looked at a third of the opposes. Moreover you are morphing numbers by personally numbers by assuming that people would have automatically supported if some concerns were addressed. That's literally make decision in place of other people. If you have any respect for the community you would correct the clear errors in your close as soon as possible.Tvx1 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- As Dumuzid always says, reasonable people can disagree. I appreciate you, and Tvx reaching out, and trust me that an incredible amount of consideration went into the close, and into the current situation. For example, perhaps stronger wording than "encourage" could have prevented this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I respect your closures in general and here, even if I disagree with the result. More than anything, I appreciate the difficulty of the position you're in. — Shibbolethink 19:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, that was looking at the first third of opposes, not the whole list. That is also why we included the language that we did about addressing the other concerns, and if not addressing them to conduct further discussions or RFCs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. Respectfully, based on some of your comments above and on the rollback RfC, I am not sure you have understood our close correctly. There are a few other comments on the rollback RfC, by other editors, which seem like partial readings of the close. We spent a lot of time reading all the comments in that RfC, and in wordsmithing the close, and it does need to be read in its entirety to avoid misunderstandings. I will say that Sunrise has correctly summarised the close and its implications here, if you're looking for an alternate formulation of it. I'll further add that IMO the issues we said had to be satisfactorily addressed were not, and on some of the issues it doesn't appear like any attempt was made to make any further changes in response to RfC feedback. I recently asked the team what changes they made w.r.t. icons, for example, and the response seemed to have largely been a justification of their original position; no changes noted in their response were done after the RfC started. Further, (paraphrasing Sunrise) I'd expected
the team discussions with editors about whether any changes they made were sufficient
, ergo the specific wording we used. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
RFA
Good day PR,
Would you be interested in turning this link blue? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)