The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus to enable the new topic tool by default. Concerns regarding the reply tool and timestamps does not conflict with the rfc. Opened phab:T311023. 0xDeadbeef01:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF's editing team has been developing tools that aim to improve the functionality of talk pages for both newcomers and experienced editors under the umbrella of the talk pages project. A few months ago, we enabled their reply tool by default. The new topic tool is a similar tool for starting new sections on talk pages; you can preview it by clicking here and choosing "Add topic" at upper right, next to the history tab.
The editing team has informed usIn light of the recent A/B test results showing the positive impact of the New Topic Tool, the Editing Team is in support of enabling it by default at all projects, and has done so on 20 other projects, with it available here as a beta feature that can be turned on in your preferences. This RfC asks whether it should be enabled as a default-on feature, but with an opt-out option available to all logged-in editors in their preferences.
Survey (New Topic Tool)
Yes. This tool is the logical complement to the reply tool, which we have been using very successfully for several months. It makes starting discussions easier for both newcomers (vital for our future) and experienced editors (essential for our present). The ease of opting out (both fully in your preferences, and on a case-by-case basis by just editing in source if you need to) limits the potential for harm. We've already been using it successfully at the Teahouse since March. It's not at 100% perfect functionality quite yet, but it's close, and it's certainly much better than the status quo. Enabling it now rather than once development is fully complete will provide us with a more meaningful window to give the developers feedback that they'll be able to address before they wrap up their initial development work. {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not. If it helps less-experienced users participate more (as the A/B results suggest), then that's probably worthwhile. Judging from Wikipedia:Talk pages project#Starting a new discussion, the big differences are the live preview (useful!) and the automatic signature (useful if "hyphen-hypen-space-tilde-tilde-tilde-tilde" hasn't already been permanently burned into your brain). Beyond that, the UX doesn't seem wildly different from the existing "+" setup, so there doesn't seem to be much to object to. -- Visviva (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will make adding a new topic consistent with the reply tool, no point having two different interfaces when you can have just one for a user to get used to for talk page comments. Terasail[✉️]14:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi y'all – on the topic of, "How will people who prefer the existing section = new workflow be able to turn off the New Topic Tool?"...
In addition to what @Sdkb mentioned above about you being able to disable the New Topic Tool within Special:Preferences, the tool offers peoples the ability to switch back to the existing section = new experience from directly within the tool as pictured here: PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this.[1] "What's going on with the times here? Bakkster Man posts at 12:29 am, Today (UTC+1) with many diffs. Next, in line, (visually) a post by Gimiv 8:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) complaining about a report with no diffs. Last, a post by RandomCanadian at 11:50 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1).[reply]
Why are times skipping around...23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC), next 8:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1), next 11:50 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1). I have no connection with any of these editors, but it's very confusing, shouldn't our "software" organize this chronologically? Seems to make editors look as if they haven't read, or are mis-replying to posts."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 12:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. That is not what I am seeing in that link; there isn't even a comment by Bakkster Man, and that is not how the timestamps look like for me. Can you include a screenshot of what you're seeing, and clarify what the problems are? (You can upload it to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/file/upload/ if you don't want to clutter up Wikipedia.) Here's what the page looks like for me, and I don't see anything wrong: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/F35185664. Matma Rextalk21:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, actually you linked to an earlier version, that's why I also looked at the earlier version. I thought that was intentional.
I am also still confused by the weird timestamps, I guess you're using some gadget to display them in your timezone and in different format? If it's showing some of them as "(UTC)" and others as "(UTC+1)", then that must be a bug in that tool. I have no idea what tool it is (it'd be slightly easier to guess if you shared a screnshot). You might find pages easier to read if you disable it, if that happens often.
The non-chronological order is expected for me. As far as I know, only replies at the same indentation level are supposed to be in chronological order. When you reply with deeper indentation to a comment earlier in the discussion, by necessity the result can't be chronological (unless you put your reply at the bottom of the thread, instead of making it a directly reply). I found a good example of this in the documentation pages: Wikipedia:Indentation#Indentation examples (admittedly it took me a while to find it). Matma Rextalk18:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Update] The Editing Team is going to prioritize implementing what @Matma Rex mentioned above: a new setting that will enable people to decide for themselves whether they will immediately land in the source editor upon navigating to a talk page that has not yet been created or whether they will see the new empty state experience.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IAR Involved Close - no one wants this RfC. Those of us who think it was a bad idea are content to see if it actually takes off or if it dies. Those who thought it was a good idea don't want it marked historical yet and have an issue with the format of this RfC. The only thing everyone seems to agree on about this is that having an RfC about whether or not to mark it historical is something we don't need now. When all the interested parties agree this isn't a formal discussion worth having at this point; thats when you stop the discussion. I've already voted, so if anyone other than the IP who started this wants to revert me, go ahead, but my reading of the consensus is that there is nothing controversial about closing this now. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Background (Administrative action review)
Wikipedia:Administrative action review (XRV) was created following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals#Passed: 6C Administrative action review. To start with, this board has nothing do with improving RFA, so many people who were not interested in RFA did not see the original proposal, as mentioned by User:Risker and User:TonyBallioni in the discussion section of the proposal. 6 months after creation and long discussions on the talk page later, the scope of this page is still unclear. It has hardly ever been used and still has "This is a newly created process and norms are still being established." on top. Many users have opined that XRV is a duplicate to WP:AN and its inactivity supports this notion. XRV has not received edits for the last 3 months except for test edits. There is nothing that XRV can do that cannot already be done at WP:AN with input from a wider audience. XRV is clearly a failed experiment and I propose that it be formally deprecated and marked as historical. There is already too much bureaucracy in wikipedia, pointing users to an unused and redundant process is unhelpful. 2409:4071:D9A:88D6:11AA:2ACF:EA4C:C433 (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Administrative action review)
Support I don't think XRV has done anything to support its founding as a solution to improve RFA's; it's birth from this RfC predicted that if it turns out to be useless it will naturally die, and it so it has. — xaosfluxTalk11:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Put me here if this RfC continues — it failed because it is duplicative and the only reason to use it is to prove a point that it is needed. That being said, I agree with Kudpung below that the better outcome would just be to let it wither away in obscurity, so I don't really oppose a procedural closure of this RfC. Actually think a procedural closure might do more to speed up the death of it since there will be less fighting over whether to save it or not. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Administrative action review)
Oppose and malformed RFC The RFC is non-neutral. The "background" isn't background, it is arguments for a certain outcome. There is a good place for the process in Wikpedia. It needs to be tweaked. Less focused on "use of tools", more focused on actions (including/especially non-severe course corrections, and including mere mis-use of the imprimatur) of admins where fellow admins consider it impolite to intervene. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there is a good place for a process like that on Wikipedia, then I suggest your time would be much better spent getting consensus for a new venue with that explicit purpose, rather than trying to mould this one into a vision that is completely at odds with what some others want to see the place become. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close send this proposal through idea lab so that people can jointly work on it, then bring it back. Major issues with the proposal atm. Curbon7 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 I'm curious what issues you see with this proposal that could be workshopped? Either the proposal is successful and Administrative action review is deprecated and marked as historical or the proposal is unsuccessful and it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(see also my extended comment in the discussion section) It's currently harmless in it's nominally experimental but practically completely inactive state. My preference is just to leave it like that until it completely fades into obscurity such that placing a historical tag is completely uncontroversial, but equally actively marking it deprecated now is not going to harm anyone or anything so I've got no reason to oppose that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no useful purpose in doing anything about it at this point, so find myself in agreement with Thryduulf and Kudpung for now. However I am open to logical reasoning and rational persuasion based on evidence. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (Administrative action review)
The "background" here is misleading and inaccurate and would be more appropriate as a comment. Yes, some people didn't think that XRV wasn't sufficiently related to RFA or too similar to AN. They're reasonable points, even if I disagree with them, but ultimately they had their say, along with those with other objections, and the RfC still found a comfortable consensus with something like 70 participants. After it was closed, we implemented the basic process proposed in the RfC and quickly started building momentum with some initial threads and a healthy set of discussions on how to refine the process. What happened then was that a small group of power users, unaccustomed to not getting their way, swooped down to try and delete the page, then when that failed, obstruct it by insisting we needed a second RfC confirming the first before it could be used, put tags on the page telling people not to use it, and most damagingly of all, remove all incoming links to it from other project pages. With that concerted attempt to smother the process before it got started, coming from the very people XRV was supposed to make more accountability to the community, it's not surprising that it became inactive shortly thereafter. So mark it as historical as a description of the current state of affairs if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that a) XRV had a strong consensus behind it which is now unrealised because of the objections of a small cohort and b) there remains a need for it, as seen by regular confusion about where the used of PERMs can be reviewed, and the continuing stream of ANI threads and ArbCom case requests about administrator misconduct that could have been resolved with early intervention at a less fraught venue. – Joe (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...I linked to talk page sections which dozens of users participated in. Why have you only notified the most vocal opponents of XRV? Not exactly a wonderful start if you're genuinely after a balanced discussion. Of course, even if there's a consensus to mark it as historical, we'll have to have a second on how to mark it as historical. – Joe (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to ping) It was clear from the RfC that developing something called XRV to do something related to reviewing (some subset of) actions by administrators and/or administrative actions (most but not all administrative actions are taken by administrators, most actions by administrators are not administrative actions) had consensus from those participating, which is not the same thing as implementing a less-than-half-formed venue with no clear agreement, even among proponents, regarding its purpose, scope or processes. When it became clear to me that it wasn't going to be easy to get agreement on any of the prerequisites for a functioning venue I decided I had better things to do with my life and the lack of activity suggests most others feel similarly. I don't really see the need to do anything with it other than let it naturally fade even further into obscurity. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe: Me? A power user? OMG! All I did was to state a few accurate facts here and here - simple generalisations about RfC proposals and noticeboard behaviour. That said, well, "coming from the very people XRV was supposed to make more accountability to the community", I'm not even an admin, so it wouldn't affect me. XRV is dead, and you, dear IP hopping user, would probably have done better by letting sleeping dogs lie. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't actually mean you Kudpung. I thought your points were fair and fairly expressed. That's 2409:4071:* leaping to conclusions. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted an inappropriate closure by Levivich, who had cast a "Profanity-laced keep" for XRV. Clearly they are WP:INVOLVED here. To address comments about canvassing, the reason I pinged 7-8 users was because Joe Roe was specifically talking about them in the examples they gave (which included one direct diff). The RFC question of "Should Wikipedia:Administrative action review be depracted and marked as historical?" is neutral. In the background section I explained why I opened this RFC, obviously I wouldn't have opened it if I was opposed to shutting it down myself. I don't see what RFCBEFORE is required here, XRV is a completely inactive process, I only sought to make it a formality. And no I am not a "logged out OP", I am a long term IP user who never saw a reason to create an account. My ISP assigns very dynamic IPs, so my contributions are spread out over a broad range of IP addresses. 2409:4071:4D13:677B:E5E4:694E:766D:5EE0 (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The basic problem with AAR is that after the community reached consensus to create it, it got back-door deprecated by way of quibbles about process and scope. We clearly should have more structure around this than currently exists, because when an administrative action is disputed on AN, the thread can be closed after a random interval by a self-selected person, and that means that the actions are reviewed by whoever gets there first. This creates an incentive to rush to comment if you want to be heard, which in my view is clearly suboptimal. We should have fixed-duration discussions and holding them in a separate venue will help to archive them. DRV reaches better decisions with less drama than the AN does, and having a well thought out process is the reason why.—S MarshallT/C12:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
back-door deprecated by way of quibbles about process and scope. is an, interesting, way of framing the discussions that were attempting to determine whether there was consensus for the sort of process you desire or the sort of processes favoured by others. There was very clearly consensus for something, but given that all these months later there is still no consensus about what exactly that something was is rather telling. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was: A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal. Wording taken directly from the RfC close.—S MarshallT/C15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, after months of discussion among editors acting in good faith, there is still no agreement on multiple open questions. This is rapidly heading towards rehashing those discussions, so I'll leave it here as you can read as well as I can and, unless anybody has anything new to bring to the table, there is no point in another few thousand words of no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were no "months of discussion". XRV was smothered in a matter of days and none of the discussion was constructive, only nonspecific objections to the process being "a mess" or "an embarrassment" or "not what the RfC said". We asked you and others repeatedly what those "multiple open questions" about the process were supposed to be, and never got an answer. It died because you (plural) insisted that the RfC consensus could not be implemented before some supposedly critical flaws were resolved, but you wouldn't tell us what those flaws were. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would put it less strongly than Joe Roe, but I do think the community consensus was clearer than most of our policies, Thryduulf. There was some real disagreement by people who wanted it to be something it wasn't, but the main problem was tactical failure to understand plain English.—S MarshallT/C16:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say failure to launch so much as it was shot down shortly after launch by people who opposed its launching. Joe summarized the details well above. Levivich18:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't help that one editor, who had very firm ideas how XRV should develop, made 25% of the talk page edits as well as 25% of the edits at XRV itself. They're now blocked for disruptive editing and checkuser-blocked, but many may have been too exhausted or frustrated by then. NebY (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. It wasn't just those opposed to the idea who killed it; overenthusiastic supporters were equally to blame. It may be that, with the initial fervor dying down, cooler heads can now prevail and we can get it re-launched. Levivich19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, mark it as an optional process and see if it helps solve problems (or if it tends to intensify them). Based on experiments we can then decide whether to make it permanent. JehochmanTalk19:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Update for the fully professional league to notable leagues
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion is also occurring at WP:Notability (sports) page. Discussion should be centralised to one forum, and therefore more appropriate for the linked page which has more specific interest in this topic, and also more commenters on the discussion. Note that a comment on this linked page is suggesting moving the discussion onward again to an alternative forum - this is beyond the scope of this page and this RfC closure. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC).(non-admin closure)[reply]
Hi. To clarify the sakes that can help enhance SIGCOV and GNG, I have proposed to update the following from the the title "fully professional leagues" to "notable leagues" in the area that the SIGCOV and GNG are to be respected, and to make the concerns addressed as to the list would be to inclusive in terms of notability.
I've made a new section so the responses are readable. A few questions: (1) Can I ask why the proposal was not put to WP:FOOTBALL first, as this seems to be within that board's area of interest? (2) I note that WP:FPL is an archived/"historical" page that you have derived this from. Is this something that has been deprecated by the Football WP sub-group? (3) There seem to WP:FOOTBALL notability criteria already. What does this new proposal add? I.e. is this really needed? (4) What are the notability criteria used here? Do you have a list? (5) Why add defunct leagues? (6) Why mention since x year?
(Continued) I do hate excessive guidelines as they prevent casual editors adding to knowledge. However if you wish to make a "notability list" then you need to ensure that you have criteria for it, as otherwise (eventually) either notability seems to get "captured" by a small group of editors, or alternatively descends into everyone thinking their hobby issue is notable enough to put on the list as there's no strict criteria. I hope these thoughts help in refining what you want to do. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Master Of Ninja I would note that they have zero need to put the proposal to a wikiproject first - in fact, I would generally say that would be a negative for a content project as doing so would inherently prohibit any notability policy that those interested in football disagree with. I make no comment on the other questions. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although note in future having a central discussion does not stop you from posting to other boards to tell others that a relevant discussion is occurring elsewhere - it just is better to have one page for discussion.
I would also suggest in your proposal on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) that you update it and write some more background including links to the previous related discussion, and a summary of the outcomes, as linked on my previous reply above. This allows users dropping by to work out what has been discussed before, and to catch up more easily on progress so far. Otherwise it relied on User:Kusma pointing out to this page that there had been previous discussions. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the most recent RfC on the topic of balance between voting and discussion at RfA, the community consensus was ...the bulk of opinions seem to be for keeping the balance as is with a slight skew towards making it more vote-like. This RfC attempts to build-off of that consensus by concentrating discussion, including the comments that happen currently in the neutral section, in the "General comments" section and on the talk page thus making the support and neutral sections more vote-like. This RfC would not change current practice of people explaining their supports/opposes/neutrals, merely where replies to them would belong.
Comments specific to the candidate/RfX will go in the "General comments" section, while more general comments will go on the talk page. An example of how this would work can be found at this RfB where discussion about a particular oppose occurred in general comments while a broader discussion about hypotheticals was moved to the talk page. Topics would continue to be seperated with a dividing line in general comments and by headings on the talk page.
Poll (RFA/RFB discussion)
Support both Our current status quo is a bad one, where on topic discussion about the candidate gets shunted to the talk page because of concerns about the tenor of discourse, while not actually doing much for that discourse because people still feel attacked by replies. By moving the comments to a general section, hopefully there will be a bit more remove (even if there are pings) and regardless when multiple people have similar concerns the discussion will be in one place rather than spread out over multiple opposes, something this recent RfA would have benefitted from. It also provides a standard (Comments specific to the candidate/RfX will go in the "General comments" section, while more general comments will go on the talk page on deciding which comments should be moved to the talk page. While I use Lee's RfB as an example of where this has worked, I would suggest it has also worked at Wugs' RfB where there was limited discussion about opposes compared to a more robust discussion in general comments. The neutral section at its best feels like it duplicates things that belong in general comments, where they should be considered by crats when determining consensus and considered by the community without tipping the balance towards or against the candidate, and at worst is needless signaling (i.e. "I intend to vote later") and since we're considering changes to increase that discussion I have paired the questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support both per the nom almost verbatim. We might not have been able to reform RfA, but small changes like this might helpfully go a ways towards making the atmosphere and process of RfX slightly less adversarial. --WaltCip-(talk)19:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
support 1 only neutral section is required. "I will vote later" comments were discussed at WT:RFA. What if one finds a candidate who is excellent in some areas, and has zero experience in some other areas, and what if that voter gets torn between oppose vs support? They dont want to support because of lack of experience, but dont want to oppose as candidate is good, has clue, and solid contributions. I think neutral is necessary. We dont protect a page/article because of one inexperienced editor. Same should apply here. Crats can handle that. Rest of the norms for general comments should be kept as they are. If comments go off topic/RfX, any crat/uninvolved editor can move it to talkpage. —usernamekiran (talk)19:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need to advertise more widely that there is the option of abstaining from any RfA by simply not editing the page. —Kusma (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose option 1. RFA can be counterintuitive already, and not being able to reply to a statement immediately below it, the way you would on a talkpage would make that worse. I think it would also make the RFA experience worse for candidates. Currently if someone !votes with an easily rebutted rationale it can be pointed out in the next paragraph - having the statement "I've checked the deleted edits, and yes it was an attack page. There may well be a notable academic of the same name, but that was a valid deletion" in a completely different section rather than in the next paragraph is not going to make RFA a better place. ϢereSpielChequers20:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1, Support 2. WereSpielChequers took the words right out of my mouth on option 1 -- demonstrably false claims in !votes need to be rebutted on the spot, not in a separate section down below. On option 2, I see absolutely no reason for someone who doesn't want to support, doesn't want to oppose, and doesn't want to leave a general comment to edit the page at all. !Voting at RFA is not mandatory, and no one's taking attendance. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 20:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support both proposals. Consolidating discussion about a given concern will reduce repetitiveness and improve efficiency: additional supporting or refuting evidence can be done in one thread, instead of having to repeat it across multiple threads. For convenience, I also support a slight modification to the first proposal, where pointers can be added in response to a support/oppose statement that would refer to the relevant discussion threads. I think the comments currently made in the neutral section can be posted within a general discussion section without loss of effectiveness, and so support this as well. isaacl (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 1 (we need to stop the way that discussions under a vote rationale tend to degenerate), but there should be a way to make factual corrections or perhaps a neutral "see discussion section for context". Also support merging "neutrals" into the general discussion. A lot of neutrals are either useless attention-seeking ("hey, I participated too!") or bring ammunition for the opposition that doesn't have to be sugarcoated as "neutral". —Kusma (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 2, support 1 with changes I never understood why there is a neutral section and a general comment section. I generally support option 1, but with two caveats. First, self replies should alway be allowed. Second, I do agree there should be a way for an editor to signal there is discussion as Issacl mentions above. --Enos733 (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both The "most recent RfC" was a war of attrition that cannot reasonably be interpreted as justification for these proposals. As stated above, if someone makes an incorrect claim in their vote, the problem needs to be corrected where the claim is made—not hidden in a large discussion 50KB further down the page. What is the problem with neutral? That section allows mild observations or reservations without recording a vote—it's fine. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2 - RfX is a discussion, and one can add to the discussion without specifically supporting or opposing the candidate, I think that removing this will either dissuade people from contributing to the discussion at all or trying to shoe-horn themselves in to support/oppose as well so they 'get counted'. And I really don't want to see *'''Weakest possible support because the neutral section is gone''' blah blah blah ~~~~. — xaosfluxTalk00:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal you are opposing does not remove the option to participate in the discussion without supporting or opposing. —Kusma (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma I'm aware - but I think it may backfire because by not having a numbered entry, some people may not think they are "counted" like everyone else. — xaosfluxTalk15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a person providing more clarity to crats on how their comments should be interpreted when deciding consensus is backfiring. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 I'm specifically talking about people who would have previously !voted "Neutral" who now would not be allowed to. Yes, they could just put general comments in the comments section, but I think some of them will feel they are not "counted" that way because everyone else gets an incrementing number with higher visibility towards the top of the page. — xaosfluxTalk00:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of statements in the support and oppose sections, I think the most prominent ones will be the first few, and the last few before an editor places their comment. Comments in the current "neutral" section have greater prominence only because there are a small number of them. It's unclear to me, though, that this prominence is inherently warranted: why should someone's comments get greater prominence just for appearing in one section versus another? Comments in the general discussion section also get greater prominence if there are only a few; they lose prominence as more comments are added, as they do in all the other sections. There isn't a good solution for that. isaacl (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we both know that this isn't how crats would read a discussion. But to the extent that it would be a fear among those who don't know better, I'm OK with it because it does send a signal about the intent of the person to the crats - that is there are mixed feelings that in the teeniest way tip towards oppose or tip towards support. As a believer in Wikipedia:Strong#What about "weak"? it seems like a legitimate way for the comments to get out there, while still having the same eventual effect on crats, as skilled diviners of consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the neutral section because the folks who just want to hear their voice will still just want to hear their voice...that's sad. I guess it's better than a section headed "Place silly irrelevant stuff here, please." valereee (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both — I see really no benefit in building up new regulations like this one because of the WP:CREEP. I think we have to pay attention to a more serious problem here: many adminship proposals are turned down too early. They are rarely discussed. Wikipedia has many problems that are non-technical. Cheers AXONOV(talk)⚑16:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And with oppose !votes like this, it's easy to see why. For some reason, it's impossible to get any meaningful changes pushed through in RFA or any other realm of Wikipedia because of a widespread impulse to avoid anything that might hint at "changing the rules", as evidenced in the failure of the RFA reform effort last year. One thing that can be guaranteed by standing pat is that nothing will get better. WaltCip-(talk)16:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support both, and especially the second. If you are torn between support and oppose, you can leave a comment explaining your justification, and that might help others decide (or not). 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk)23:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1, oppose 2 – Best to avoid staggering discussions across multiple sections or pages. The neutral section also helps for consolidation and offers a voice in the "main" thread for those who aren't comfortable supporting or opposing. ComplexRational (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1, oppose 2 - I don't see enough justification to convince me neutral votes are harmful in some way and understand the value some editors see in stating their opinions through such a vote. Nonetheless, I think the first proposal is a good one. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both — concurring with WereSpielChequers and Johnuniq, being able to directly comment on a user's vote is extremely important, not only for explaining why the vote might be inappropriate, but also highlighting the issue for the next or following participants hovering over that section; ultimately, greatly influencing the the way the next editor votes. The drive-by voters, of whom there are an abundance these days, might not bother to scroll all the way down to read various comments, many of which are more about the process than the candidate. Probably few participants take the time for a serious read of threads removed to the talk page unless it is about a juicy scandal.
Xaosflux's oppose of No.2 makes absolute sense.The 'neutral' section is also important because it is used and read by wavering voters. It is quite different from the quagmire of general chit-chat at the bottom of the page, and the neutrals could also be taken into consideration in a 'crat chat, or even by a single 'crat having a hard time reading a consensus in a close run RfA - it has happened but it would be suicide if I were to provide the diffs. (Sorry Barkeep49, I know you are hell bent on RfA reform - so was I for years, and still maintain that change is needed - but I think these 2 proposals are solutions looking for problems). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1. Unless we disallow discussion entirely (I hope not), the only thing shunting replies to a different section or the talk page does is make it harder to follow. Support 2. Having a special section for people to explain why they're sitting on the fence is the most Wikipedia thing ever. There is no difference between a neutral vote and a comment. – Joe (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1. The problem with RFA is not people responding inline, it's people responding uncivilly. This will not fix the problem and, per others above, will introduce others. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 Just a baby step towards what we need which is to organize a substantial, polite focused discussion (including participation by the nominee) in important areas of question. Mild oppose to #2 I was going to vote "neutral" on removing "neutral". :-) "Neutral" is a way to express actual sentiment and not remove participation by those who aren't in the other two choices. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support both - I wanted to wait until my RfB was over before making any comments here. I feel like I'm in a unique position having been through two RfXs in two years. My general thoughts are that the neutral option is very similar to just not voting at all. I get that sometimes a user may want to spoil a ballot - but that information would be the same in general comments.
In my eyes, one of the bigger issues at RfA is badgering (or at least people being accused of it). Very few people strike their vote after having someone comment on it. Having the discussion over issues at a different place is helpful in my eyes. Having the discussion happen immediately after the !vote cast is quite combative, whilst a ping to a discussion thread would be a little bit more calm. I know I would feel like others were suggesting my comment was much less valid if I had a direct response than a ping to a discussion.
That being said, discussions that happen, but aren't actually about the user in question (such as at the RfB, where there was some valid concern about security risks for having additional users with higher rights/2FA) are helpful, but shouldn't fill up the RfA page. These should be more more swiftly to the talk, or better to WT:RfA. My rfA had a valid discussion about the state of WP:GAN, but it's not helpful in discussing the candidate. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)17:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2: Neutral votes don't harm. No need to remove them. Someone might be great at one thing but not so much at the other. We may want to cast a neutral vote. Abstaining is not a solution, because someone else coming to the RfA may find the reasoning useful in deciding their vote. Maybe, of the points I raised, the "other thing" matters more to them. Because the candidate is not good at that "other thing", and my vote brought it to light, the voter now has a clearer picture and vote accordingly. That's what I do, keep reading every incoming vote (S/O/N) to ensure that I don't miss something. And ofcourse, when S/O ratio are in 'crat discretionary range, the crats may find something useful in the neutral section to base their final decision. Neutral on 1. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})09:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a 'crat that closes RfX's sometimes: I currently give more weight to a "Neutral, Leaning x" (though less weight than a "weak x" in the support/oppose sections) than just a comment in the general discussion area. The general discussion area is still relevant and important - especially if there are specific issues raised in the numbered section that get more resolved in expanded discussion. Most of this is only relevant in close-calls of course. — xaosfluxTalk10:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1 per WereSpielChequers; far better would be more active clerking or consistently removing to the talk page after two extra comments instead of it sometimes happening & sometimes not.. Oppose 2 because it's a solution looking for a problem, and because the Neutral section can be of use. Happy days ~ LindsayHello13:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse 1, oppose 2. The first option prevents users from bludgeoning another for their opinions. However, I believe the neutral page has its own utility, and should be kept (at least for bureaucratic consideration when closing an RfX). Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1 because of the occasional newbie RfA !vote that's like "XTools says that the candidate has 3,000 deleted edits, so they must have made 3,000 bad edits!" – for blatantly erroneous statements like these, I think it is important to keep the factual correction as close as possible. DanCherek (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. I opposed to 1 because, in some circumstances, replies asking for clarification should be immediately asked instead of being asked on the Talk page purely because of procedural reasons. I agreed that if the conversation becomes long it should be taken to the Talk page, but there are circumstances where it should not be taken to the Talk page. I opposed to 2 because Neutral votes are valid votes regardless. Being Neutral and unable to form up your decision is different from abstaining in the RfA process. People that voted Neutral have their opinion and reasoning as well - and this may sway the Support/Oppose voters, and should be kept in the procedure. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)11:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both per WP:CREEP, WP:BROKE. I don't see these proposals as solving any problem, and they seem like they would needlessly stifle discussion. RfA has many problems, neither the neutral section nor the ability to reply to comments is one of them. ~Swarm~{sting}05:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. The proposals just seem to make contributing more awkward. Flexibility is good, as is not having to switch to the talk page but rather simply to scroll down. Jmchutchinson (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Q: what does it mean by The neutral section will be eliminated at Requests for Adminship/Bureaucrat? It sounds like there would be only two sections: support, and oppose. Did I get it right? —usernamekiran (talk)19:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably too late now, but might have been better to split this into 2 RFCs originally. It's hard to take the pulse of this and see what way this is trending without a very thorough read, due to the mixing of two questions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This may just be my pet peeve, and its not as bad as it used to be, but I always thought "placeholder" neutral votes are self-important nonsense. "I haven't taken the time to actually form an opinion, and I just wanted that noted for the record" is just noise. If nothing else we should ban/remove those. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I totally missed that previous discussion. Interesting. I think just removing them is still the right move, but if we remove the neutral section altogether that will obviously be a moot point, so I guess we'll wait and see what happens here first. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The basic issue is that although there have been placeholder statements from newcomers (perhaps thinking that their participation had been solicited and thus they felt compelled to say something), they've also come from long-time editors, who would likely be displeased with having their comments removed. Thus the benefit-to-dissatisfaction ratio of enacting a new rule is fairly low, particularly considering the small number of such statements. (On the other hand, perhaps it happens so infrequently now that a rule could gain acceptance with only minor discontent? On the third hand, if it's out of fashion then it's a non-issue.) isaacl (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite physical work
Why there is no one template for cite physical work like there is one cite web? There are three different Cite magazine, Cite encyclopedia and Cite book and probably more but maybe there is something universal? What if PDF file isn't a book, magazine or encyclopedia? Eurohunter (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there actually is a proposal in this section, it is hard to figure. The heading mentions "physical work" (presumably as opposed to a virtual work), but the OP mixes it up by mentioning pdf, a (virtual) file format. I was under the impression that the OP was asking for a catch-all {{cite xxx}} template for physical (real) works with no specific classification, similar to the way {{cite web}} may be used for some (virtual) online works, when such works cannot be otherwise classified. But the continuing references to pdf make me wonder. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't to classify the source. The point is to get a properly formatted citation for the kind of thing that you're citing. In this case, magazine articles and generic documents use the same citation formatting, so it's the same template. You can use the redirect name if you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of citing anything is so the reader can go check the source and verify the claim. If you don't know what medium what you're citing even is, better not cite it. Nardog (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about that. The difference between "an article" and "a report", or between "a long report" and "a short book" can be difficult to discern. That doesn't make the source unusable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily lock an article
NBA 75th Anniversary Team clearly states: Statistics are correct through the end of the 2020–21 season, the season last completed before the list was announced. And also: which doesn't keep folks from adding Steph's and Steve Kerr's recent NBA title.
And since having an account on the wiki doens't induce reading skills, I suggest a hard lock for everyone until hte hype has died down.
For this particular page, it's nine days after the most recent post. So if nobody else posts in this section, this will be eligible for archiving at 21:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to prohibit WikiProjects from ranking further articles as A-class
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently, only bureaucrats may create new pending changes reviewers. I propose that this power be transferred to administrators, since the right is relatively less important (unlike, say, the power to grant new admins). Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NotReallySoroka: Er, I'm an admin with no superpowers - just the basic admin bundle plus autopatrolled. If I go to "User rights management" for any user (from a newly-registered account with zero edits, all the way up to Jimbo), I get the same two columns. The first, titled "Groups you cannot change" is greyed out - it has the following entries:
List of items
bot
administrator
interface administrator
bureaucrat
oversight
steward
importer
transwiki importer
founder
researcher
checkuser
copyright violation bot
push subscription manager
blocked from IPInfo
The second, titled "Groups you can change" allows me to toggle all of its checkboxes - it has the following entries:
Jimbo doesn't need the pending changes reviewer permission to be explicitly set, as it's one of the many rights that come automatically with adminship... — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
This RfC attempts to gauge a consensus for a reform of clerking at RfAs/RfBs, which is proposed due to much discussion on that topic during a recent RfB. The general proposal is submitted below for evaluation, please share your thoughts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrats may !vote but may not clerk discussions. If they submit a !vote, they shall not be active during the determination of consensus for approval of the request for adminship/bureaucratship and may not participate in the bureaucrat discussion, if it is started.
A clerk that has had substantial interaction with the candidate in question, or has nominated the candidate for RfA/RfB, must refrain from clerking it.
The clerks must refrain from making comments in support or opposition of the candidate, and shall not modify or remove the comments based on whether the clerk agrees or disagrees with the opinion expressed there, but may only do so in case of violation of civility. They shall make explicit any intervention in the comments, along with the reasoning of intervention.
Using their administrative tools (if they have access to them), the clerks may ban the editor from the RfA/RfB they are participating in case of persistent refusal to maintain decorum, but only for the duration of that RfA/RfB. A general ban from such discussions may only be enacted following a discussion at the administrator's noticeboard.
Any sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry investigations, or those of canvassing, if started by a clerk or a bureaucrat in relation to an RfA/RfB, must be resolved as a first priority.
The community will determine the venue of appeal or review of clerk's actions. (Formulated that way due to the current uncertainty over the existence of XRV and its scope)
The Arbitration Committee may, if the rational usage of user resources so requires, appoint more clerks.
Rationale (Clerk reform at RfA/RfB)
In 2011, there was a proposal to introduce clerking as an ad hoc role for administrators and non-administrators in good standing alike, but it was not approved. The 2015 RfC established that bureaucrats may have the right to clerk discussions. In the answers submitted as part of the most recent RfB, however, Wugapodes, an (unsuccessful) candidate for a bureaucrat, said that bureaucrats are reluctant to clerk the discussions themselves, particularly since they may be perceived as non-neutral if they intervene. There has been some discussion during the RfB of the proposal of more active clerking as a way to reduce the stress and drama that often accompany the process, and there seemed to be some support to let it have a try, though not much certainty over the effectiveness of such a solution.
This proposal suggests a change from the bureaucrat-enforced decorum (which apparently does not work) to clerk-enforced decorum. Clerks are supposed to be experienced in dealing with incivility, which is often in ample supply at ArbCom, and the ways to respond to it. A drawback to this solution is that there are few clerks to begin with, and some bureaucrats are already arbiters. That said, let's try this proposal to see if people agree to make some sort of change, or even if it fails, we could see where the community in general stands on this issue. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback (Clerk reform at RfA/RfB)
(summoned by the bot) I applaud such efforts but 'Oppose This would be 8 new rules and procedures to solve 2 non-existent problems. The big problem at RFA isn't uncivil decorum, the problem and fix is more complex than that. And Wikipedia already has rules and processes regarding uncivil behavior. But thanks for such efforts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If approval for sanctions is determined at the administrators' noticeboard, then I think any uninvolved administrator should be able to evaluate consensus (and, if deemed necessary, implement any suitable blocks). I don't think it's a good idea to prioritize sockpuppet investigations for an internal procedure versus those for mainspace edits. If necessary, an internal procedure can be put on hold or extended, without consequences to readers. Regarding the 2015 RfC, note the option of "any editor" received almost as much support as "bureaucrats", which is in practice what is done today. (On more minor editorial notes, the first sentence of point 2 is redundant with point 1, and point 8 is always generally the case.) isaacl (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback on components:
I don't see any reason to forbid 'crats from clerking. I also don't like the idea of having arbcom be in charge of RfA's (as they are in charge of the arbcom clerks). I vote for arbcom members for dispute resolution skills, not for this.
'Crats already recuse when appropriate; this sets up a scenario that could prevent closure (as recusal isn't required if every active crat participated in an RFA it would be stuck - in practice this doesn't happen as the majority of 'crats do abstain from !voting.
There are currently only 4 active clerks - who are also active throughout the project - some are already likely to have interacted with admin candidates.
Volunteering to clerk arbcom cases should not disenfranchise someone from participating in RfA's.
"Bans" don't require admin tools, and I don't think we should have any situation where a single editor can ban another one.
CU's are volunteers - dictating the order of their work, or that they must volunteer to do something before they are allowed to volunteer to do other things is very anti-volunteer.
Um, sure.
Arbcom can already appoint as many clerks as they want.
So, I think there are many problems with this as proposed. I am fairly open to expanding the 'clerking' capacity of our 851 strong admin corps. — xaosfluxTalk12:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While some RFA/RFB discussions could be better, this amount of bureaucracy isn't going to resolve the issues and could lead to others. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We are currently investigating a number of visual improvements to Special:Search, to enable users to better find the information they are looking for. This is part of a greater initiative that we are conducting, called “Search Improvements”, and we are interested in hearing your feedback.
What do we want to do?
As you will see, most of the proposed changes are graphical improvements to the current way Special:Search looks like. Our goal is to provide better context and better layout for casual readers who want to use the Wikipedia search page, as well as promote awareness for Wikipedia’s sister projects by rearranging the “sister projects” search section.
By clicking on the blue links, you can see a mockup of the proposed changes. You can also see all mockups at a glance by visiting the Search Improvements project page on Mediawiki.org.
What are we asking you?
We want to hear from you about these proposed changes. None of these suggestions is currently set into stone, and before deploying them we want to hear your opinion about them.
More specifically, we would like to know:
What do you think about the approach that we outlined above?
Do you think that any of these changes can affect the contribution flow? If yes, how?
Do you think that these changes can improve the experience of new users or casual readers?
Your opinion is important to us, and we want to use it to inform these changes before we eventually deploy them, if there is feedback to do so from all communities.
How can you give feedback?
You can reply to this message here (please remember to ping User:Sannita (WMF) when you do) or on Mediawiki.org. We plan to keep this consultation going for around three weeks, from today until July 10, 2022.
We are also planning on hosting an office hour on June 28 at 15:00 UTC, where you can ask questions and directly reply to the team about the proposed changes.
@Sannita (WMF): Like Ahecht, I'd like to not have thumbnails until phab:T306246 is resolved. Also, I'm not sure if collapsing the advanced search options is a good idea. Instead I think, moving the "sort by" option between the "blue Search button" and "Results 1 – 20 of 859" would be more intuitive for casual readers. All the other proposals look really nice to me. Best. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})19:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): On second thought, casual readers would not care much about when a certain article was created or when it was last edited. Such sorting is useful on e-commerce sites but probably wouldn't be here. So sorting system is probably best placed where it already is. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})13:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Animal lover 666 It's better than nothing. I'd rather have a few "meh" images not appear than unexpected graphic images showing up in benign search results (for example, a search for "Iran's Penal Code" shouldn't show a thumbnail for Anal sex, and a search for "Canadian Holstein cows" shouldn't show a thumbnail for Anogenital distance). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht, @RoySmith, @CX Zoom, @Animal lover 666: thank you so much for your interventions and your feedback! I already reported your comments to the dev team.
Regarding T306246, someone is looking currently at the bug. I'll keep an eye on it too, just to be sure that it doesn't get in the way of our development. Regarding T146418, it doesn't apply to our current sprint, but we will take it into consideration for our next steps. I'll keep you posted about it.
Support, makes sense after the reply tool. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Blocked sockpuppet) —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
