Talk:Requests for comment/Possible Homophobia on Pashto Wikipedia

Comments moved from original context.

Opening of Pashto request page

It is clear that a place is needed to handle requests from Pashto Wikipedia, because a divided and upset community is using this steward request page to debate issues. Hence I have opened Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia and have set up what I hope will be a less disruptive option. Requests may be made on Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia/Requests. I recommend that stewards (or anyone) discourage the filing of Pashto wiki requests here, transfer any requests opened here to the Requests page (or allow me to do that), and encourage users to use that process. I hope stewards and global sysops will watch the RfC, as a minimum, and the Requests page if they want. I will work to make that process efficient and fair. Thanks to Billinghurst for taking bold action, and to the Pashto community, I assure you, this will work if you want it to work. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I later concluded that it was generally better to not move requests to the new RfC, but for new RfC comments to be explicit and personal requests for facilitation of consensus. A request for facilitation is different from a request for admin intervention. However, anyone may make a personal request for facilitation based on the comment of another, which comment could be diffed. So, in my fantasies, a steward files a request, "I cannot act on this matter ([diff]) without consensus, so I am requesting facilitation." The facilitator could then take this up. The requestor is the steward, not the original person.

What currently happens is often just the denial, or sometimes stewards go ahead and act, based on personal judgment, without a prior discussion. --Abd (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Please file any possible requests for action on ps.wiki, where consensus is not apparent and controversy is likely (such as this request) on Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia/Requests, where review and formation of consensus may be facilitated. I am not encouraging the filing of requests there by others (i.e., moving of requests there); however any steward or global sysop may choose to push a request to that page (i.e., as a request for facilitation). Above we can see the result of request filing here. This page becomes a battleground and a place for charges and defense and argument. Any user seeking to help the ps.wiki community get on-track, to develop habits of seeking consensus, please volunteer as a facilitator. We also need translators. When consensus is apparent on a matter in that RfC, requests will be escalated as needed for steward or global sysop attention. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Afair there are no clerks at meta. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There are now. ("clerk" = "facilitator," someone not a decision-maker except as to organizing process, creating clarity and making it possible for decision makers to have a clean and clear discussion to look at.) If you prefer to see all this contentious argument on Stewards noticeboard, you are free to argue or act toward that. I'm just a wiki user, doing what any user could do, if it's allowed. I could, instead, do this in my user space. Would that be preferred? What I see is that it's starting to work. Users are addressing the issues instead of just attacking each other. Thanks, Vituzzu.

The original RfC is a black hole. It basically went nowhere. It is not being used to generate consensus. Action occurred because of independent events, essentially wheel-warring. Nemo is moving requests from SN to the old RfC. That's fine with me; to explain why I don't want requests written elsewhere to be copied there, except as a specific and personal request for facilitation of consensus, I'd need to explain a lot of traditional culture and human psychology. I do know what I'm doing. --Abd (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(What a bright idea to move my comment twice) Self-named clerks? Are you kidding me? Both of you are making a mess, especially at ps.wiki! --Vituzzu (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't move comments here. I do move comments on that new RfC page, that's what a clerk may do, with the goal of improving function, not suppressing expression. If this RfC were closed, moving out-of-process comments to this talk page could be appropriate. It's not closed. So go figure.

Yes, self-named clerks. "Volunteers" is the term. It works, if the clerk actually functions neutrally. How about watching it, seeing what it does? Nobody has to follow that page. But someone who wants to get a clear understanding of the situation, with less mess to wade through, is likely to find it there. Or it will fail. But how was the existing process working? Do you want all those requests and arguments and debates on the Steward's noticeboard?

As to ps.wiki, I certainly did not create that situation. Nor did Nemo bis. He's trying to get the train wrecks off of SN. So am I. He's moving what they place on SN here. Fine. I've created a space where those users can make a request and something will actually be done about it, at least it will be attended to and civilly discussed. And I'm sure that more than that can be arranged. So far, though with just a little evidence, it's working. --Abd (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Vituzzu's first comment was made on SN: [1]. It was, with other content, moved here by Nemo bis.[2][3]. I don't see that it was moved twice. However, Nemo has massively moved comment here from SN, and has moved comment from the RfC to this talk page. For better or worse, Nemo bis is clerking the Stewards noticeboard and this RfC. Such occasional clerking is not uncommon. However, there is a problem with moving content from one page to a different page (as distinct from moving off a page to the attached talk page). Comments become disconnected from their edit history, and the new page may easily not be on the watchlist of the user who made the comment, there may be no notification of responses, etc. Comments are removed from the context in which they were made, sometimes (as with the above, where here" referred to the Stewards noticeboard, not this "Homophobia" RfC).
• This RfC has a title: "Possible Homophobia on Pashto Wikipedia." What is being moved is not about homophobia. There was a serious problem on pswiki, visible through wheel-warring and an admin indef blocking another, resulting in the removal of all admins and the bureaucrat. The original complaint may have been a symptom.
• Yet continued contentious pswiki argument and complaint on SN was disruptive. What to do? Nemo's response is one. Mine was another. They are not in conflict, though Nemo removed announcement of Requests_for_comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia to here from SN -- where it was intended -- and supported [4] -- to provide notice of another option for pswiki users. Thus new requests continued to be filed there, though that might have happened anyway. Nemo attempted to shut down [the new RfC with [5]. (Reverted, Nemo did not insist.[6].)
• A third solution was suggested by Billinghurst on my Talk page.[7], making requests for administrative assistance on Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Yet extended community comment is discouraged on steward request pages, and any request that requires consensus is likely to be summarily dismissed.

When consensus is apparent, a user may point to a closed or clear discussion when making such a request. That's the end of the process. It can take time to create that expression of consensus.

• My hope is that the community will be allowed to explore alternatives to what has obviously not been working, for years. The RfC here, like many similar RfCs, was a train wreck, a mosh pit where complaints, often grossly uncivil, could be expressed and users could argue endlessly with each other, mostly being ignored. Such RfCs may sit open for years without resolution. We can do better. --Abd (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Closure

Billinghurst added a "closure" note, but this request was about "homophobia." The closure was an action taken, coming out of the clear inability of ps.wiki to resolve issues without global support in some way.

A series of steward requests were moved here from the Stewards Noticeboard. I do not recommend discussion of them here, it is likely to generate more heat than light.

There is policy discussion taking place on ps.wiki, and that will take time.

I have created another RfC, Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia, as a facilitated support forum, a place to request administrator action on ps.wiki, and to set up discussions here if, for some reason, they cannot be handled on ps.wiki. Facilitation is necessary because of the history of uncivil and tendentious dispute. I'm a volunteer facilitator, and more will be useful. We also need translators.

Requests for action or discussion should be placed on Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia/Requests. I will then facilitate the discussion and ensure that it remains civil and focused on the goal of returning control of ps.wiki to a fully functional Pashto user community. Please cooperate with this. My job will not be to make decisions or draw conclusions, but to organize discussion and maintain civility, and, occasionally, I may make suggestions out of my wiki experience, as may others. I am not an administrator, but I know a few. Part of the purpose of the RfC is to stop wasting the time of stewards with angry debate. If there is a true emergency, identify a friendly steward and email him or her, or stewards@wikimedia.org. Requests in the RfC may take a few days, or even longer, I cannot predict exactly, but remember, it's a wiki and anything can be fixed.

I do recommend this RfC be formally closed. --Abd (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This request for closure was moved from the RfC page to here. Normally, requests for closure are kept on the RfC page. However, it doesn't matter much. The RfC page is essentially a black hole, a coatrack for complaints that will go nowhere, unless a user is warned or blocked for incivility, which doesn't seem particularly reliable. --Abd (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)