Anonymous user
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests: Difference between revisions
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests (edit)
Revision as of 17:11, 17 August 2013
, 10 years agoI think this thread has broken the record for longest running discussion in TSW history
imported>LostInRiverview |
imported>Lost Labyrinth (I think this thread has broken the record for longest running discussion in TSW history) |
||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Community discussions|
Please forgive me if I don't write an incredibly long wall of text about the recent issues we've encountered with requests for rights (i.e. [[TSW:RFA]] and [[TSW:RFB]]). I doubt I need to rehash the cluster-''you-know-what'' we just experienced with the most recent request, and I don't want to turn this thread into a place to complain about the opinions of others in that RfA. This is the place to solve the obviously flawed RfA and RfB system. Because there are a couple things which are broken, clearly.
Line 169:
:'''Option 2''' supports implementation of ''only'' separate pages for each new request
:'''Option 3''' supports the implementation of ''both'' one-request-at-a-time and separate pages for each new request
'''This vote is now closed.'''
----
'''Option 3''' - I think having requests on separate pages makes sense from a housekeeping standpoint. I also think limiting to 1 RfA and 1 RfB at any one time makes sense, to make sure that the attention of everyone is focused on a particular issue. So, I support implementing both. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 20:15, June 11, 2013 (UTC){{clr}}▼
----
'''Option 2''' - Cosmetically it makes the RfX pages look less cluttered. The landing page would just list the current nominations with links to the subpages and it would be easier to focus attention on multiple discussions this way. {{LabSig}} 21:22, June 11, 2013 (UTC){{clr}}
----
'''Option 1''' - Personally, I don't see the pros to having separate pages for each request. However, I believe that having one request at a time would be ideal, especially if there could be such a long process for RfB (depending on the result of the second vote). --'''[[user:Bleeh|<font color="navy">Bleeh</font>]]'''<sup>[[User talk: Bleeh|<font color="#489094">(talk)</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[User blog:Bleeh|<font color="#489094">(blog)</font>]]</sup> 02:46, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
----
'''Option 1''' - Staying with what I said per the discussion, I'm still firm on the option of having one request at a time. Like Bleeh, I don't see any pros on having separate pages for each request. Having one request at a time could also make both request pages look like they are in a controlled environment. [[User:Beds|<font color="#6B1D51">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''parlare'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''da leggere'''</font>]])</sup> 07:14, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
----
'''Option 1''' - I think this would be simpler than having a page for each request, as I believe doing that would be a bit tedious. ~ [[User:Waikikamukow|<font color="6a2286">Waikikamukow</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Waikikamukow|<font color="00b0f4">Anyone wanna chat?</font>]])</small> 11:07, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
----
'''Option 2''' - I'd rather not limit requests to one person at a time. [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 19:17, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
----
'''Option 3''' - Per LiR. {{DanPinSig}} 19:23, June 12, 2013 (UTC) {{clr}}
----
'''Option 3''' - It makes it a lot less cluttered and as pointed out, everyone is focused on the one nomination. {{PGRSig}} 19:43, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
----
▲'''Option 3''' - I think having requests on separate pages makes sense from a housekeeping standpoint. I also think limiting to 1 RfA and 1 RfB at any one time makes sense, to make sure that the attention of everyone is focused on a particular issue. So, I support implementing both. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 20:15, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
=== Second Vote ===
'''Question''': ''Should RfAs and RfBs implement a commentary period prior to voting, or implement a comment-based consensus system which eliminates voting except in certain circumstances, '''or''' should further discussion be held before a decision is made on this issue?''
:'''Option 1''' supports a commenting period before a voting period, and a focus on substantive rational votes.
:'''Option 2''' supports a
:'''Option 3''' opposes both Option 1 and Option 2, and instead states that discussion should continue until a more reasonable solution can be found.
'''This vote is now closed'''
----
'''Option 2'''. First off, I don't really support Option 3. We've had this discussion ongoing for weeks, and I don't think additional time is going to bring forward many substantive ideas. As for the difference between options 1 and 2... to me, it comes down to which system is more fair. If a hypothetical user applied for rights and was turned down because some of the votes in their favor were found not to have strong enough reasoning behind them, that seems less fair than a system in which that applicant can have a straight up-or-down vote if there is unclear consensus. I've said it before but it's worth saying again... there's no really good way to implement a system where votes can be struck out, so it would make sense to create a system that avoids voting if possible. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 20:19, June 11, 2013 (UTC){{clr}}
----
'''Option 2''' - Seems to follow the trend most discussions here take - if the actual discussion itself doesn't say much then take it to a vote - so I guess this is as fair as you can get with this. {{LabSig}} 19:46, June 15, 2013 (UTC){{clr}}
----
'''Option 2'''. ''To me'', it seems to be the most sensible and time efficient option. [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 21:52, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
----
'''Option 2''' - I don't like the idea of someone deciding if a vote is justified or not, as votes are simply a yes or no (or neutral or abstain) and a short sentence following it. An actual discussion period would give more insight into the views of the users voting and give voters a better opportunity to express their sentiments. --'''[[user:Bleeh|<font color="navy">Bleeh</font>]]'''<sup>[[User talk: Bleeh|<font color="#489094">(talk)</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[User blog:Bleeh|<font color="#489094">(blog)</font>]]</sup> 02:46, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
----
'''Option 2''' - After some thought, I think Option 2 would be the best option. It would give the nominee less pressure while the commentary period takes place. And, as Auror stated, it is time efficient. [[User:Beds|<font color="#6B1D51">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''parlare'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''da leggere'''</font>]])</sup> 07:14, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
----
'''Option 2''' - I believe that if the consensus is reached during the comment period, then a voting time is simply not needed. Like Auror, I think it's the most effective option out of the three. ~ [[User:Waikikamukow|<font color="6a2286">Waikikamukow</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Waikikamukow|<font color="00b0f4">Anyone wanna chat?</font>]])</small> 11:07, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
----
'''Option 2''' - Per above. {{DanPinSig}} 19:23, June 12, 2013 (UTC) {{clr}}
----
'''Option 2''' - I think everyone else has summed up what I would likely say. {{PGRSig}} 19:45, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
----
'''Option 2''' - It seems to be the most suitable option for the 'strength of vote' sort of thing used with the original RfA/B, but also eliminates the black-and-white "You can/can't become an admin" atmosphere the old process generated. <font face="Courier (typeface)">[[User:AsherÉire|<font color="#74C365">Asher</font><font color="#FFA700">'''Éire'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:AsherÉire|'Sup?]]</small> </font> 20:09, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
==Moving Forward==
There seems to be consensus in both votes, so in the idea of wrapping this up ASAP, I'm closing them down.
The second vote, which I had assumed would be controversial, was not. Option 2 - a system that utilizes a comment and discussion period, with a voting period used if a consensus is not reached - received support. Since it was largely indicative of the proposed system outlined way above, that is what will be implemented. It's worth noting that if there are issues with that system, they can be dealt with later, and a new system can be devised if necessary.
The first vote is a little more work to figure out. The presence of option three - allowing a vote for both options 1 and 2 - complicates the counting of the vote. Ultimately, six of the eight respondents supported implementing Option 1 - three people voted exclusively for option 1, and three for option 2, which included option 1. Five of the eight respondents supported implementing Option 2. Since a majority of respondents technically support both options, the only fair and practical resolution is to implement both options 1 and 2.
As soon as the requests pages are re-written to reflect these changes, requests will be re-opened. In the meantime, I'll leave this thread open just in case there's a need to discuss this further. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 00:57, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
==Follow-up==
Alright, we've been through two RfAs now under this new system. What does everyone think about it? Are there any positives or negatives you can pinpoint? -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 05:28, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
:I like the new system - the last two requests were dealt with very well and everyone commenting on them seemed to understand the new process and followed the new rules set very well. All in all, I think the Wiki is really going to benefit from the new ruleset. [[User:Beds|<font color="#6B1D51">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''talk'''</font>]])</sup> <sup>([[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''blog'''</font>]])</sup> 09:18, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
::Per Hana! ~ [[User:Waikikamukow|<font color="6a2286">Waikikamukow</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Waikikamukow|<font color="00b0f4">Anyone wanna chat?</font>]])</small> 10:05, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
== Something else ==
This is another thing that has been under the hood for a while now and as it's loosely related to an RfX system, I figured I should use this thread to bring it up.
Currently, there's a nomination awaiting a response from the nominee. This nomination was made 1 week ago. As we're using a system where only one request is processed at a time, this can be somewhat of an issue should that nomination remain in its current state indefinitely and possibly being a blockade to any other requests/nominations waiting to take place while we deal with this one.
This wouldn't be such a problem if we allowed multiple requests at a time, but as the majority have already stated their desire for one request at a time there's no point continuing to look at that idea unless those who supported the one request rule would consider backtracking (I'm not expecting any miracles). The only other way is to implement a timeout period before a request is sidelined in favour of newer requests, which in my view seems somewhat unfair to the nominee should they be on a short-but-long-term break from the wiki. Forgive me if it seems like I'm trying to rush RfX requests but leaving nominations to sit there indefinitely isn't, in my opinion, good practice.
I feel this is worth some kind of discussion. {{LabSig}} 14:14, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
:Eh.. I like the idea of a timeout period, but even having that could still prevent another user from nominating themself or another user. I mean, if we have a 1-week deadline, and that user does not respond even within that one week, other users who were willing to nominate wouldn't get the chance to for at least the week that the user did not respond to the other nomination... maybe we should think about having multiple, but maybe no more than 2 or 3 at a time...? but even that could be a hassle to deal with. {{PGRSig}} 14:25, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
::The way I had been thinking, and the way I ultimately edited the RfA page to say, is that multiple 'pending requests' can be there at the same time, awaiting a response from the nominee. If an applicant wanted to apply in the meantime, they could still do so and their application would be taken first. In other words, we take the RfA (or RfB) applications in order of when the application/nomination was "ready" to be discussed.
::That would also allow us to form a queue of RfA applicants/nominees if multiple people wanted to apply or be nominated at around the same time. The list would be first-come first-served, based on the order in which the applications or nominations were "ready" to be discussed. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 15:21, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
:::I guess the queue system could work. If as an alternative we thought about multiple requests, I wouldn't mind imposing a cap of 2 or 3 nominations at one time as Pidge suggested. I'm not hoping for a silver lining on that one though so I guess the queue system is probably our best bet, unless anybody else has another idea. {{LabSig}} 23:18, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
::::I have no problem with the queue system, but will we be putting a limit on how long a nomination can go without a response from the nominee? {{PGRSig}} 02:22, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
:::::I like the idea of having a queue/the multiple pending requests, and I think what Pidge is saying about putting a limit on the amount of time between a nomination and an accept to that nomination, is a good idea too. ~ [[User:Waikikamukow|<font color="6a2286">Waikikamukow</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Waikikamukow|<font color="00b0f4">Anyone wanna chat?</font>]])</small> 07:06, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
Bumping this thread, it looks like having requests queue is accepted. As for having a time limit on pending requests... how long are we thinking? Two weeks, a month perhaps? -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 18:59, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
:Two weeks seems reasonable enough. In my opinion, there's really no point considering a user for an RfX if they're never here and, unless they're declared absent via their user page or other extreme circumstances, it really shouldn't take any more than 2 weeks for somebody to respond to their nomination. {{LabSig}} 23:58, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
::Two weeks is more than enough time to accept, so if that isn't enough time I don't know what is... I'm down with that. {{PGRSig}} 03:18, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
== And one last thing... ==
Forgive me for bumping once again with something else but as it's directly related to the new system, I may as well bring it up here before we put this forum to bed.
The old system required one to have 50 edits before they could vote and that was explicitly stated in the ruleset. One of the abuse filters is currently regulating this but nonetheless I'd like to propose we apply the same restriction on the new system for both discussion and voting. My reasoning for this is that we've had cases in the past where users have had users from other wikis vote in support based on personal ties and those users aren't active members of the community. This could easily be seen as swaying the vote to the nominee's favour if the users who are actually active here aren't in support of the RfX.
I'd also like to propose that those 50 edits are explicitly made within the project namespaces (Mainspace, Fanon and Game Guides). I think this would be useful as somebody with little to no community presence shouldn't really be weighing in on an RfA and somebody who, for example, only makes 50 blog comments before trying to join in with the discussion doesn't really constitute as part of the community.
I can already anticipate mixed opinions on the second point but I'd still like to know what everybody thinks. {{LabSig}} 19:59, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
:I agree wholeheartedly with both points. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 20:24, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
::Per LiR, however if a user is voting inter-wiki, should we be counting their edits on that wiki and also taking into consideration their connection with the user whose request/nomination for RfX is being discussed on said wiki? {{PGRSig}} 03:41, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
:::Per LiR. No questions from me. [[User:Beds|<font color="#6B1D51">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''parlare'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''da leggere'''</font>]])</sup> 09:33, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
::::@Pidge Probably best not to. It can be seen as a conflict of interest on personal grounds if somebody with 5,000 edits on another wiki shows up and voices support for one RfX candidate based on personal ties whilst having very few, if any, meaningful edits here. That and being part of another wiki's community =/= being part of TSW's community. {{LabSig}} 11:14, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
== Conclusion ==
After three months, we have a new system and a new ruleset for user rights requests. We also have consensus to put into place a multiple requests queue where the nominee must respond to their nomination within two weeks. We also have consensus to restrict discussion to users with at least 50 edits on content namespaces. The queue system and edit requirements will be written into the RfA/RfB ruleset shortly. If anyone wishes to propose any further changes to the system, you're welcome to start a new thread. {{LabSig}} 17:11, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
| |||