Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Discussion review

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments in brainstorming stage

[edit]
Moved from Wikipedia:Discussion review
Francis Schonken, shall we take the comments to the talk page then? --George Ho (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Francis. I already moved it here. --George Ho (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've not really followed the discussions prior to the drafting of this process, but I'd have thought one of the advantages of this process over taking issues to AN is that the community can discuss closures by non-admins in a more appropriate venue. Sam Walton (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About AN... Even if it is a good idea, the practice/execution would not be so good. Also, we should have non-admins challenge non-admins or admins. Admins can challenge others. Also, there have been a lot of cases at Incidents subpage. I mean... sometimes there would WP:involved behavior of administrators, especially if the process is part of the subpage. Also, the name "WP:discussion review" is more simple to type than the longer one "WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Discussion review". We can have two separate processes carrying "Discussion review"... Or we can simply have just "WP:discussion review". George Ho (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, admins may have too many problems to handle already. George Ho (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the venue can also challenge closures of ANI and AN discussions. Also Village pump discussions. George Ho (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, just more WP:FORUMSHOP temptation ... For clarity, again, current guidance places these review discussions at WP:AN. That's where they'll stay unless the community can be convinced to rewrite current guidance (so, again for clarity, this proposal should have been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions i.e. the talk page of the current applicable guidance, before initiating a guidance fork proposal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dead end there. The WT:closing discussions is less often used, just like any other talk page venues. I started this out at WP:VPIL, which has more attention than the other. --George Ho (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you indicated in that VPIL section, it all started here – a non-admin closure...
Re. "WT:closing discussions is less often used" – this only strenghtens my idea below to make Wikipedia:Discussion review a redirect to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, so that it is used more often (after all it is the current applicable guidance), instead of the far more often used "forumshopping" approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't such interpretation violate "WP:NOTBURO"? Also, per WP:PAG, pages should be very clear to readers and suitable. Content may change over time if previously unclear. I know "forum shopping" may be tempting, but are there other reasons to oppose the process? --George Ho (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... the community can discuss closures by non-admins in a more appropriate venue" – why would that be "more appropriate"? At WP:AN issues are discussed by "the community". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've really not thought about this all that much, but my thinking was that the Administrator's Noticeboard does strike me as an odd venue for discussions that could be about the closure of RfCs by non-admins - why should that necessarily take place at AN? Sam Walton (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
? if the non-admin closure is problematic, then escalate to the next level ... wouldn't know why that would be an exceptional train of thought. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems like it might provide a more sensible venue for non-admins to discuss non-admin closures. Sam Walton (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The thrift of these discussions being "should an admin have been involved in the closure?", the logical step seems to be... ask an admin... --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Questions implied in my first comment above:
  1. Is there a need to keep these discussions out of WP:AN? Please illustrate with examples where and when this has been problematic in the past.
  2. Is there an admin volunteer base to service the page? Some admins committing to servicing the page would be needed before going live with it.
Unless answers to the above questions can convince me otherwise I'd make Wikipedia:Discussion review a redirect to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For #1, You can see this revision and check closed discussions. Also, see this one and that one. If two are not enough, how many shall I provide. For #2, I don't know what you mean. George Ho (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the problem? This seems a solution in search of a problem... --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More on #1: this, that, this, that, this, that. George Ho (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would this one be a better example? George Ho (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only potentially problematic one afaics in the examples above is the Novak Djokovic one. As the OP of that thread did not indicate whether (and where) the original close had been discussed with the closer, the AN review discussion could be closed on sight (thus not problematic after all, but that advice could have been given to the OP by the closer of the AN discussion).
The Gamergate discussion (your last example) ended up at ArbCom. Proper escalation to the next level I'd say (FYI, ArbCom is, as we speak, considering a possible relaxation of the Gamergate case remedies – seems like proper escalation worked in the end to address the underlying problem, which was behavioural in this case).
The other examples are content discussions being forumshopped to AN. AN is not for relitigating content discussions (see WP:CONSENSUS for policy on where to go with content discussions). Neither would Wikipedia:Discussion review be a venue for relitigating content discussions. So if you can't see the difference I don't know why you copy-pasted text to that page indicating that it would not be a venue for relitigating the underlying disputes? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If closed discussions at AN are not adequate examples, here are one about merged article (from 2009), from 2007, from 2009 again. This year and 2006. George Ho (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
? Again: where is the problem? Unclosed discussions fall out of the remit of your proposal. If you want to "prove" that this new venue would have a higher rate of review closures, then you still need to clarify how you would find the volunteers to realise that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... I didn't notice Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive, a list of the discussions. George Ho (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, above you said "WT:closing discussions is less often used", apparently you just didn't check till now. And next you seem to have a problem it is used. Aren't we done discussing this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This example. George Ho (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
?? Again, where is the problem? That was a closure review taking place at AN. How would a closure review at Wikipedia:Discussion review be any different? How would it be better? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and some closures would require admin action (e.g. modifying a page protection), so I don't see how a committee of exclusively non-admin closers could be effective. I'd prefer the current venue (WP:AN) where closures can be operated by admins and non-admins, but admins are around when admin action is required to implement a sensible closure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not excluding admins from this process. The process is for everybody. Admins can organize the process better than they do AN, which is getting larger at any instant. AN archives are huge and not easy to navigate, even with search box tools. George Ho (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One discussion and another were closed by a non-admin, not admin. Well, not much of an issue there on the former, but the latter was challenged somewhat. Another discussion was closed by admin, but then someone else challenged the closure. Another dicussion closed by admin did not end there. I don't know how to describe this one, but that looked messy there. Closure on another discussion was challenged. George Ho (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, Francis? I'll allow the idea of changing the name to "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Discussion review". However, I'm not allowing the bold change yet without consensus. George Ho (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The closure was not problematic; the discussion got larger in the Noticeboard. Another discussion not as well easy to navigate George Ho (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're not illustrating how this page would make a difference. Either the Discussion review page would have more bureaucracy, resulting in discussions that are easier to follow, or, without another layer of bureaucracy, they would be just as messy. Even without additional rules: one more page to divert the really hard discussions to is more bureaucracy, not less. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All right, if I can prove that the process is not bureaucratic, Francis, must I fix the AN first or something? Shall I engage in other discussions about other processes or something? You can revisit this process if everything else fails to resolve things (before ArbCom). WP:DRV is packed up; WP:MRV, less visited. Also, about the process... if the process can be potentially messy, it can be divided into days, like DRV, or months, like MRV. Or it can be divided into discussions about various venues. George Ho (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "You can revisit this process if everything else fails to resolve things (before ArbCom)" – I got the message loud and clear now: what you're proposing is another layer of bureaucracy between AN and ArbCom. No, thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard vs Discussion review

[edit]

I created a table, just in case. We should discuss the comparisons between one currently existing and one developing. --George Ho (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawing all support to this idea. Something George said above set me to thinking: what's being offered here is a new slice of bureaucracy – what we want is less bureaucracy, not more. Promises like "Discussions well arranged" and "Easy to navigate" sound empty, and no plan is proposed how that will be realised without enhancing bureaucracy. I also don't think this should be appended as a subpage to WP:AN without broad support, which, the way things are standing now, you won't be getting from me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is this more bureaucratic than AN, Francis? At least I added "bureaucratic" in the con. George Ho (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to that one above. You're not offering solutions for a less bureaucratic approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the imaginary differences keep accumulating in the table above, so I cleaned it up a bit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pros and cons of Move review

[edit]

Another thing about Discussion review is merging WP:Move review into this process. I first evaluate the Move process. George Ho (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging a working process into a non-existing process in brainstorm stage? Really? Did you talk to these people? AFAIK high endorsement rate of the other process is linked to being mostly admin closures. I recall merging of closure review processes being proposed and discussed before (at WP:VPP if I remember correctly), with no success. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WT:move review is (nearly) a dead end. Almost no one visits there much anymore. George Ho (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
? little activity on the move review talk page probably indicates operations are running smooth. In November someone posted there, and immediately got replies. Your (near) dead end qualifications are but too gratuitous. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Francis. The backlog there is not actually a backlog, it's process. MRs take a while, because what's under examination is sensibility of the closer (it's not a relitigation of the pro and con arguments for the move), and that necessarily requires due consideration. MR is not the "railroad people who don't close the way I like" bureau. And most RM decisions, like most closes of other discussions, should be endorsed, otherwise our entire discuss-and-close system would have collapsed years ago.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURO

[edit]

I see no value in creating another little bit of unnecessary bureaucracy which applies only to a very small number of discussions, the closes of which can be discussed, if necessary, in the place that the discussion took place. We need another venue for more excessive discussion by freeloading editors like we all collectively need a hole in the head. I therefore oppose this proposal, and suggest that it be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to call for deletion, Beyond My Ken. I changed from "brainstorming" to "failed proposal". --George Ho (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems wise. The review processes we have are for specific procedures that seem to have needed them. For "everything else" (including questionable RfC closures) WP:AN is already used for this purpose. WP:VPPOL has also been used this way (sometimes to my chagrin, by using it as a WP:FORUMSHOP venue to try to overturn an RfC immediately after it closed just because someone didn't get to have their say). We already have venues for raising legitimate issues with discussion closures. Some are specific (generally due to the nature of the process, like WP:MR for WP:RM), some not, and that's okay.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Discussion_review&oldid=1030736299"