Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
::I've responded at AN. The point, Alsee, is that whether you want it or not, people commented on the substance and that was the determining factor in answering the question you asked, I had to determine consensus on the media viewer default status in order to determine consensus on the RFC question. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 02:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
::I've responded at AN. The point, Alsee, is that whether you want it or not, people commented on the substance and that was the determining factor in answering the question you asked, I had to determine consensus on the media viewer default status in order to determine consensus on the RFC question. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 02:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
::In addition, I've never claimed that there is consensus for 'opt out'. There is no consensus for 'opt in' in this RFC, but it doesn't imply the former. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
::In addition, I've never claimed that there is consensus for 'opt out'. There is no consensus for 'opt in' in this RFC, but it doesn't imply the former. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::[[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] you didn't say consensus to opt-out, but you did assert that your "no consensus" has the effect of vacating an established consensus, with the same effect as issuing a consensus for opt-out. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 04:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:53, 18 December 2014
- discussion moved to Talk:Grand_Central_Railway#Metric.2Fimperial
re: Oie Masafusa → Ōe no Masafusa
- moved back to User_talk:JLaTondre#Oie Masafusa → Ōe no Masafusa
Midland Metro icon in routeboxes
Happy First Day of Spring!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Fr%C3%BChling_bl%C3%BChender_Kirschenbaum.jpg/204px-Fr%C3%BChling_bl%C3%BChender_Kirschenbaum.jpg)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Fr%C3%BChling_bl%C3%BChender_L%C3%B6wenzahn.jpg/204px-Fr%C3%BChling_bl%C3%BChender_L%C3%B6wenzahn.jpg)
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Freedom-class omparison image
- Moved reply moved back to User_talk:Gary Joseph#Image:Freedom-Class Comparison.jpg.
St Pancras International
- moved back to User_talk:Likelife#Rename of St Pancras railway station.
- moved back to User_talk:DeluxNate#DEFLATE.
RE: Doppelmayer cable car
- moved back to User_talk:BigHairRef#Doppelmayr Cable Car
Security in Ubuntu
- moved back to User_talk:Baron1984#Slow down
Mercedes-Benz 600
- moved to User_talk:Scot12#Mercedes-Benz 600
DEFLATE hardware cards
- moved to Talk:DEFLATE#DEFLATE hardware cards
A picture of a box no less
hot bulb
Copied to userspace per your request
Citation wikilinks
- moved back to User talk:Ciar#Citation wikilinks again
Kew Bridge stations
ISO delinking
- moved back to User talk:Rich Farmbrough#ISO delinking
TUSC token a3e4e1043e01191fbc28bfce4e6e159f
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Re:See Also
- moved back to User talk:The Navigators#See also
SmackBot
- moved back to User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Talk:Eurostar
Ubuntu (operating system)
- moved back to User talk:Perspectoff#Ubuntu (operating system)
Bluecoat School
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thehelpfulbot
- moved back to User talk:Thehelpfulone#Unhelpbot
Gatwick Express
- moved back to User talk:D47817#Gatwick Express
Glasgow Trains
- moved back to User talk:D47817#Glasgow Trains
Wrexham & Shropshire
- moved back to User talk:D47817#Wrexham & Shropshire
Spelling Errors in Image: and File: Filenames
- moved back to User talk:Tabletop#Spellcheck_filenames.
KLBot2 Wikidata
- moved back to es:Usuario Discusión:Kizar#KLBot2_Wikidata
Template size
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Julia ford biog
- moved back to User talk:Conway63#Julia Ford
Accessdates
Edits, without warrant
Hello. Would you please add an in-line reference to your recent edit on John Nelson Goulty's page? Otherwise, it will be deleted. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for picking me up on it!—I think I'll have to defer to the experts (yourself included). The information is from cross-referencing genealogical sources, whose construction a fear soundly falls under WP:OR! —Sladen (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Great stuff on obtaining the image – thanks for that! I'll make a note on one my /WIP userpage of the K Books Ltd scans possibility. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yes, the picture is great. I would suggest removing the unreferenced info about his notable descendants as long as we are unable to find a clear in-line reference.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Go for it. It's in the history now, so can be rescued easily. —Sladen (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could add a note on the talkpage in case someone else is able to find a reference?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Go for it. It's in the history now, so can be rescued easily. —Sladen (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yes, the picture is great. I would suggest removing the unreferenced info about his notable descendants as long as we are unable to find a clear in-line reference.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Great stuff on obtaining the image – thanks for that! I'll make a note on one my /WIP userpage of the K Books Ltd scans possibility. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Media Viewer
I don't want to push, but if you're interested I would be more than happy to fill you in on the background. The comment you left on the close review was painfully ironic, it almost exactly describes the majority side. Note that this is a review of two closers going against the majority, after a third closer has already been reversed for giving no-reason for closing against the majority. Alsee (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Alsee, it's very hard to know what (my) view point might be in comparison to others'—what is lacking is a high-level overview, like we would write for a good WP:LEAD. What would help everyone (not just myself) would be an introduction showing what these majority/minority/she-said/he-said/she-closed/he-closed arguments might be. —Sladen (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I always cringe at the huge rambling explanations people give for disputes, I was trying to just focus on the exact close-problem and provide links for background. Here's the timeline:
- WMF deploys MediaViewer (MV) on tiny wikis, gets decent survey results. Deploys MV everywhere, MWF survey results find only 29% English readers find it "useful". Similar on German. Note that people have been coming forward saying MV is awful, but they answered yes to useful because they though "useful" meant "does it work". The survey had a text response area, but responses like "Media viewer itself is awful" do not fall into any actionable-bug category. Therefore employees filter out those survey responses before sending the results to management.
- EnWiki, Commons, and German all run RfCs. All say default-off. Our RfC results: 93% say default off for logged in, 81% say default off for everyone. MWF doesn't do anything.
- Germans run second super-strict-binding-RfC deciding to edit the javascript page to do it themselves. MWF employee gets mad, reverts it, threatens to de-admin the editor who was carrying out the RfC. That WMF employee orders devs to rush out Superprotect, a new page protection level that blocks even admin editing.
- People get mad, applying page-protect to win a page-content disagreement is one of our most blatant battleground abuses of force. Especially when done against consensus. We're supposed to resolve reasonable disagreements by working together.
- Petition against Superprotect gets nearly 1000 signatures.
- WMF sort-of apologizes for Superprotect, gives the javascript pages back to us, including a request (not demand) that we not change MV setting.
- Along with that statement, the announces a "Community Consultation" on MV, promises "No predetermined outcome".
- Note - the WMF's actions prior this point had been to invite community input on bugs or requested improvements.
- WMF runs Community Consultation Process to solve the problem..... the consultation process invites bug reports or requested improvements (exactly what they were doing before). The consultation process explicitly prohibits consideration of opt-in vs opt-out. In other words the consultation had a pre-determined outcome. People upset at sham-consultation.
- People are upset at blocked-consensus itself. People demanding any admin simply step up and use the javascript to opt-in MV as a simple consensus-action on the MV-RfC. People worry the WMF will re-apply superprotect.
- I start RfC so the community can debate that question. I specifically want to inhibit anyone from doing it, as it was under formal debate. I want to avoid escalation.
- If the community wants to implement, Part 2 of the RfC asks if we want to issue a formal request that the WMF do it and place a 7 day ban on the community doing it. This was my attempted solution, again preventing community implementation and hoping the WMF will agree to cool things down. (I've had talks with the Director, she seems to want to improve Community-WMF relationship.) I botch one line of the RfC and it draws heat from opponents - but that line can be harmlessly dropped as no-consensus.
- So, RfC outcome is more than 2-to-1 want to follow through on the original RfC result to set MV to opt-in. The result on part 2 is is also solid to ask the WMF to do it for us, wait a week, and then we're free to do it ourselves if still needed. Supporters would be happy to work things out with the WMF, they just want the WMF to come to the table in good faith discussion rather than Superprotect and de-admin threats.
- Some people are rabidly demanding consensus be respected and MV be opt-in (consensus itself has becom the bigger issue than MV), some people are rabidly pro-WMF and pro-MV staying opt-out.
- Rabid opposer steps up, closes against consensus. I challenge the close, I ripped a hole in his case, he was left with a baseless assertion that anything less than 70% threshold was "no consensus". The close is a joke, it's reversed.
- Second rabid opposer does a half close on just part 2, sabotages the RfC. He takes-off-the-table the option to work-with-WMF. His explanation for going against consensus? He didn't feel like issuing one. This close is an utter joke.
- Third closer goes against consensus on part one. Instead of closing on whether we want to carry out the original RfC result, he goes on a rambling explanation of his views that there's no consensus on the media viewer setting itself. It sounds well reasoned, but that's not what we were debating. He changed the question, wrote what he liked, and claims that his no-consensus here has the effect of establishing a new a consensus MV be opt-out. He's claiming his no-consensus on the wrong-question effectively flips the standing 93% consensus for opt-in. And he's going against more than 2-1 consensus in the process.
- And here we are. Close 1 reversed, closes 2 and 3 challenged.
- I don't see any way to make a high-level-lead out of that. Alsee (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Could you help me find the diff for "He changed the question" ("Third closer", if I understand correctly). —Sladen (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- He didn't re-write the question. He ignored the RfC question. The RfC question was whether we wanted to "Reaffirm and Implement" the original RfC result. Instead he analyzed it as if this were an RfC trying to obtain a new consensus on media viewer setting, and issued a "no consensus" result on the media viewer setting. It's in the review request, but I'll grab it exactly.... Alsee (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Question One. Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC#Consensus.2Fdisapproval_has_been_established There is a clear consensus that the Media Viewer should be disabled by default for both logged-in (section link) and non-logged-in users (section link).
- The close is long and rambling, but in the middle he writes " I find that there is no consensus for disabling it by default." Alsee (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Right, so which diff is the closure that is being referenced here? —Sladen (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- WP:Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_1 Alsee (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- In the close review I explain the issue: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard#Discuss_part_1_close_review Alsee (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- So in summary, [1] ? —Sladen (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, that's the close diff Alsee (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- The part 2 close was a joke, but it doesn't matter unless the one you're looking at is reversed. And I admit, this one is a tough challenge. It's a kinda subtle issue. Alsee (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- He's exploiting the fact that supports like the following don't discuss media viewer itself:
- So in summary, [1] ? —Sladen (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Right, so which diff is the closure that is being referenced here? —Sladen (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Could you help me find the diff for "He changed the question" ("Third closer", if I understand correctly). —Sladen (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac Alsee (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Little or no discussion of media viewer = no basis to render a consensus result on media viewer. Therefore he issues a no-consensus on media viewer. But the question was whether we wanted to follow through on the original RfC. Alsee (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've responded at AN. The point, Alsee, is that whether you want it or not, people commented on the substance and that was the determining factor in answering the question you asked, I had to determine consensus on the media viewer default status in order to determine consensus on the RFC question. Cenarium (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- In addition, I've never claimed that there is consensus for 'opt out'. There is no consensus for 'opt in' in this RFC, but it doesn't imply the former. Cenarium (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cenarium you didn't say consensus to opt-out, but you did assert that your "no consensus" has the effect of vacating an established consensus, with the same effect as issuing a consensus for opt-out. Alsee (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)