Wikipedia talk:2017 ANI reform RfC

I wish this RfC good luck, more so than similar RfCs. I wonder if someone has made some statistic about what ANI receives and how the complaints there turn out - resolved on first shot, or merely dragged along. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Jury selection

The main structural problem with ANI is that participation is mostly by self-selection and so it has tended to be dominated by cliques, cranks, hotheads and troublemakers. A good recent example seems to be the sanction imposed on Arthur Rubin which seemed quite bizarre and is now being undone. The claim was that this was done in the name of "the community" but that doesn't seem credible or sensible when the participants have the character of an angry mob per WP:PITCHFORKS. The traditional way of managing these things under the common law is to empanel a jury of peers -- "twelve good men and true". This is typically done by a lottery of some sort with further measures to try to ensure impartiality. Something of this sort is needed. Andrew D. (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

While I understand where you are coming from you will bumping up against WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. MarnetteD|Talk 12:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Right next to WP:NOTBURO is WP:NOTBATTLE. ANI could use more bureaucracy and less pitched battles. In British history, this method of settling disputes literally died out about 600 years ago. My own clan was fighting to the bitter end...Andrew D. (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  By 1300, the wager of combat had all but died out in favor of trial by jury. One of the last mass trials by combat in Scotland, the Battle of the Clans, took place in Perth in 1396. This event took the form of a pitched battle between teams of around thirty men each, representing Clan Macpherson and Clan Davidson on the North Inch in front of the King, Robert III. The battle was intended to resolve a dispute over which clan was to hold the right flank in an upcoming battle of both clans (and several others) against Clan Cameron. The Clan Macpherson is thought to have won, but only twelve men survived from the original sixty.

I think that Andrew Davidson's comment is correct that self-selection of participants in ANI is a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a universal problem with any volunteer environment: the only community members that will be heard from are those who speak up. The key issue is there isn't any incentive for the average editor to spend any additional time on Wikipedia beyond the tasks they're interested in, whether that's making article edits or contributing in other ways. Sites like Stack Overflow encourage participation through status points; my guess, though, is that those interested in participating in discussions on proposals like these for changing Wikipedia (again, a self-selected group) would not favour this. isaacl (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an essential point, but incomplete. In the current environment, an editor not only has to be willing to speak up, but they have to be prepared to take some heat, often abusive. It's highly unlikely that the small group who establish the prevailing culture by the written and unwritten "rules" they create are representative of the whole editing community. The system selects those who are the most aggressive, with the thickest skins, and the results are predictable. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I've discussed in the past how Wikipedia's environment selects for less collegial editors over more collegial ones, how undue weight is given to the most activist editors, and various other problems with English Wikipedia's consensus tradition. In the context of the original comment, though, the key challenge is there's no incentive for a randomly-selected group of volunteers to invest effort in resolving a dispute amongst editors. isaacl (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:Feedback request service. Alsee (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

section closings

@Winged Blades of Godric: Given that the RfC has been open for just over a day, it seems premature to start closing sections. Even if the original proposal seems unlikely to pass, the associated conversation may lead to variations that may gain more support. isaacl (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Isaac1. It also a weekend and the first one in August - a time that many vacations happen - meaning that many editors will not even be aware of this yet. There is no harm in reopening the sections and allowing for more input. MarnetteD|Talk 03:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Will be adding something on my TP at a rel. thread soon.Once I get back to my preferred device!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've undone the closures, as there's no conceivable way they were appropriate so early into the process. Winged Blades of Godric, while WP:SNOW closes are occasionally appropriate (either when a discussion is proving a distraction and wasting the time of those involved, or when a given user is being criticised and it would cause unnecessary upset to keep it open as it's obvious they understand the problem), this was clearly not the case here. Closing down an active discussion is just plain disruptive, as even if the proposal as written is unlikely to pass the nature of the opposition can determine what alternative proposals will be made in future. Closing RFCs—especially RFCs this contentious—isn't something you should be doing unilaterally and without even bothering to discuss it first. ‑ Iridescent 13:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding more closures: I appreciate people may think some proposals don't need further discussion. But there's really no harm in just letting discussion fade out, and at best, maybe some new related ideas can be generated. isaacl (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again Isaac1 is correct. This is a RFC not a RFD and the guidelines at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs should apply. What is the problem with leaving all the sections open until the entire RFC is closed? MarnetteD|Talk 01:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Seconding this (unsurprisingly). Although I opposed the closed proposals, closing them down just looks like a "the status quo is fine, you shouldn't be discussing change" supervote. (I actually broadly agree that the status quo is actually working pretty well and most of the complaints about the existing RFC→ANI→DRN→arbitration ladder of dispute resolution are vastly overblown, but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to try to block other people from raising their concerns.) ‑ Iridescent 15:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

MarnetteD, your link to Ending RfCs says An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no need to waste time beating a dead horse. I think it's obvious that sections B1 and B2 are far over that line, unanimous except for the original poster. Sections A is toast with 14 vs soft 3. I have temporarily held off closing because debating whether sections should have been closed would be the waste of time, defeating the point of a WP:SNOW. The only potentially productive section is C. The WP:Jamaican Bobsled Team clause may apply. It has small but well justified support, and the oppose show interest in a variant.

Iridescent, please try to avoid interpretations like closing them down just looks like a "the status quo is fine, you shouldn't be discussing change" supervote. Winged Blades and I have significant experience at WP:AN/RFC, closing utterly random RFCs. A good closer closes on behalf of the community, not according to their own opinion. In this case, it's silly to suggest "supervote" when someone closes in line with an effectively unanimous result (other than the original poster). A close isn't saying 'the status quo is fine', a SNOW result reflects community consensus that a particular idea is dead. Discussing changes is fine. But when you don't have a viable RFC proposal/dispute to resolve, you don't need to summon random editors from WP:Feedback request service to offer an impartial opinion. Alsee (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You were closing after barely three days Alsee and as was pointed out two of those were a weekend and it is August when many are on vacation. Numerous editors will not have had a chance to comment and your close takes away that opportunity. You have not shown where there harm occur in leaving them open for a longer period of time Snow or no Snow. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

MarnetteD please reconsider and be more specific with your concerns about my closes. Are you concerned with my close of the 8-1 section, informing and redirecting people to the WMF initiative with a half million dollars in resources and the ability to overcome editfilter technical limitations?[1] Or were you concerned with my close of the 12-0 section that that even the author didn't support?[2] Or both? I believe it was beneficial to redirect participant attention to sections that were more viable, and to help them return to other productive work more quickly. If you have a viable proposal, fine, run an RFC. But there is no reason to waste valuable editor-time piling 40 or 50 oppose !votes on a dead idea. Alsee (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I was specific and you still have not shown where there is any harm in leaving the sections open. It is out of line to claim that time is being wasted since no one is required to comment here. If anyone does want to "waste their time" by commenting you have certainly prevented that. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm confident that any editor who is looking to maximize their time investment will be able to quickly see that their pile-on contributions are not required. I recognize for this particular discussion, it's not hard to pick up the conversation in another location such as the comments section. But the simplest approach, avoiding any discontinuities, is to just let conversation continue and fade away naturally, which generally happens pretty quickly anyway for these types of proposals. isaacl (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, especially since some suggestions (a jury method, a change away from a focus on "diffs") have not been discussed in depth and rejected yet. That said, I was fairly sure that the arbitration ladder is ANI-->Arb and the mediation ladder Talk-->DRN-->RfC, not RfC-->ANI-->DRN-->Arbitration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the reason Iridescent called it a "supervote" is that the closure appeared as:

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. Opposed.Winged Blades Godric 17:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

which looks more like a newbies's !vote done in the wrong way. If Winged Blades wanted the closure to appear as a reasoned step, and not just unreasoned opposition, then the summary of the conclusions needed to be a bit fuller. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield:--Without delving into the merits and demerits about the timing of closures-at all; I believe some closures don't need a rationale.Esp. where the intention is to stop the pile-on.As a side-note, do you want me to write --Bureacratic and impractical in the closure-statement (That's what most of the editors plainly and bluntly said and are still saying in the section!) as a rationale for closing B2? Explicit statements are gen. used only when the topic and the expressed view-points are too controversial or wide-angled and there is a chance that in absence of a detailed analysis/interpretation people could mis-read the closure(See this revision for an example..Also, you need not repeat the The following...... reached follows.That generates from the transclusion of the rfc-closing template.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

And Iridescent, as much as I personally don't find any problem with your reversions of my closures, I feel that it would be probably good to refrain from such comments as to super-votes and like.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger! I'm just trying to help you understand why your closures appeared premature and arrogant, even if they were never intended to be either. Being unfamiliar with you I clicked on your name and about the first thing I saw was "This user is in school". My initial reaction was to revert, but frankly I assumed one of the other involved editors would try to guide a youngster. Your edit history clearly shows that you are not as inexperienced as one might expect from someone still at school, but first appearances can be deceptive. Turning to specifics: Bureaucratic and impractical would have been better, as would WP:SNOW and a comment on the number of pro and anti !votes. Finally, niggles excepted, well done for your interest and I hope you continue with this level of involvement when you go on to college. Kind regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! For personal reasons, I feel against writing such strong words--esp. when the proposal has been started by experienced pedians with the best of intentions.But you are obviuosly fine to have contrasting view-points!Actually am already at college.!The template is kinda redundant! Will be removing it!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades, I agree that SNOWed discussions typically don't need explicit closing rationales. But I'll also agree with Martin that the bare 'opposed' result was uncomfortably informal. I can see how it might increase the chance of a revert. I think one of the most valuable things a good close can do is get as much respect/reluctant-acceptance as possible from people who might be unhappy. I agree with you that avoiding unnecessary criticism is often a good idea. I think a more formal tone also helps, even if it's as simple as writing "Consensus opposed". Alsee (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Rude and obnoxious redirects

Seems like one small thing that could be done is to get rid of the rude and obnoxious redirects mentioned at the beginning of the discussion. Just a thought. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitely—they're the result of self-appointed comedians trying to be funny and serve no useful purpose (with the possible exception of WP:Complaints Department which is a plausible search term, although that should probably point to the table at the top of Wikipedia:Village pump). It should probably be done via MFD as their WP:OWNers (at least, the ones who aren't blocked) will no doubt bring their tag-teams along to complain if process isn't followed to the letter. ‑ Iridescent 15:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I think one uses WP:RFD even for non-mainspace redirects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you know, I'm honestly not sure whether the "WP:" means it goes to MFD or the "#REDIRECT" means it goes to XFD. My preference would be MFD as it's a discussion that would likely attract an order of magnitude more participants than RFD and would overwhelm that day's RFD page. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The proper place would be RFD. While I personally think they are lousy redirects, my informed opinion is that consensus will be to keep. Some of them have been to RFD before, with keep results. The keep-rationale can roughly be summarized as 'harmless humor'. If someone wants to try an RFD anyway, your best shot is CESSPIT. For the delete rationale you really need to assert that it is actively harmful. Something like 'contributes to a hostile/corrosive atmosphere'. And even with a really well crafted delete nomination, I'd estimate 30-40% chance of deletion at best. Alsee (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)