MarcoAurelio has closed the above discussion with the following statement: "In my humble point of view I feel there's no community support for the proposal." There are two serious issues with closing this discussion.
- This summary of the discussion is untrue to a simple observation. There is obviously *some* community support for the proposal. In fact, all contributors who would be affected by support of the proposal have shown full support. Any closing authority should note this in their summary. As it stands, this summary of the discussion is clearly not a good
-faith summary of what took place in the discussion.
- The discussion had not ended. There were open questions that had yet to be addressed. I'll restate mine: Can those opposing state clearly how they will be negatively affected by this specific proposal? The discussion is not complete until these questions are addressed or have clearly been purposefully left unaddressed. Explicitly choosing to not address questions like this should be considered when closing. Regardless, closing the discussion before those who were questioned about their reasoning have a chance to respond is obviously premature.
In my assessment, MarcoAurelio has closed this discussion inappropriately and we should re-open the discussion *after* the popular set of winter/solstice holidays that are currently keeping people away from their activities online. --EpochFail (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I've edited my statement to strike "-faith" from my assertion of the quality of the summary statement of the closing admin. I did not intend to accuse MarcoAurelio of operating in bad-faith, but rather had intended to make a statement about the qualities of the summary. I regret for causing hurt feelings and I hope that this explicit action will serve as consolation. --EpochFail (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- After reading your allegations, my closure stands, but any other admin is free to reopen it if it feels it is indeed improper. Let me explain:
- The discussion has lasted a month. That's a fair ammount of time even for Meta, and the majority of the regulars here disagree with using Flow in this project on any way. Several proposals have been raised and all of them have failed, including that one.
- Your arguments looks more emotional than policy based. Having some support is not the same as having community support, and the true and real community of this site do not want this feature here, no matter how good the intentions of the people involved here are.
- Demanding explanations only for those who oppose but not to those who support as well subdues those set of users unfairly and mean that the opinion of those people should be given less weight. That's not how we work here. If they don't want to answer the questions they're in their right to do so and their opinions shouldn't be disregarded.
- I feel that my closure reflects the feelings of the Meta-Wiki community towards your proposal. I could have written a more complex, flourished statement, but the result would be the same: there's no consensus.
- I'm also not buying the argument of the Christmas hollydays. The section above shows pretty clearly that Meta-Wiki folks are still here and, moreover, a) that the closure was not innapropriate and, b) that reopening the discussion when 99% of the people of this project is against this feature would be a waste of our valuable time.
- I'd also appreciate if you could present evidence of your accusations towards me that I've acted in bad faith or I'll have to consider that as a personal attack.
- Thank you, —MarcoAurelio 19:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Currently your comment in the discussion you closed looks as if you provided an opinion in the discussion, and then closed it favoring the same way as your comment. That seems rather improper to me. Legoktm (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you mean the last comment to the discussion above and the closure at the top, they're both closing comments. Please, assume good faith. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 10:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fortunately, the inactivity around this holiday is not a matter of debate. See https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/15128 as evidence that there's currently a substantial activity drop around this time of year on meta. MarcoAurelio, can I ask you if you see me as a member of the Meta Community? How about Jtmorgan? Or Guillom? Surely my admin status means that I'm, to some extent, a member of the Meta community. I've been contributing here for years. The three of us have built most of the content in the Research namespace and we regularly bring new researchers and research to Meta. We are a legitimate subset of the Meta Community. Your comments imply otherwise. Also, I have not accused you of anything except improperly closing the discussion. I've said nothing about your intentions. --EpochFail (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't go circling and presente evidence now on where I have acted in bad faith as you said ([...] bad faith summary) or strike it. I've been volunteering on Wikimedia sites for nearly 10 years and I've always had my best intentions on it. If you still think my closure is innapropriate you can challenge it to the other bureaucrats of the site. I still think that my closure reflects the feelings of the community, and the discussion above makes it quite clear if it was any doubt. Moreover, if the discussion was not ended, why Trizek (WMF) was so eager to convert that page into a Flow board on 19 December? Is there any interest of talking about that? —MarcoAurelio 15:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- MarcoAurelio, I'm still not seeing where I have accused you of bad-faith. I was making a statement about the nature of your summary. As I said, a "good-faith summary of what took place in the discussion" would acknowledge all points argued. Saying that there was "no support" is obviously not true. What did you hope to achieve through saying that there was "no support"? For your other question, it seems that MZMcBride had noted on phabricator that "There's certainly not unanimous support for this request, but I think there's consensus to move forward." and after that, the change was made. I was under no impression that this conversation needed to be closed. --EpochFail (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Again, what's wrong with you? This is disgusting. Jesus, just drop the stick. Please stop assuming I have some sort of shadow interests in this subject. I'm "hoping" nothing. I read the entire discussion and took also the past precedents to conclude that there's no support to implement your proposal. My alleged improper closure has been confirmed below fwiw. In purity, the conversation was unilateraly closed by your team when you decided to convert that talk page into a Flow board obscurely via a Phabricator ticket. After that, there was no point in continuing the discussion. I'm not perfect but I think the improperness is not comming from me here. —MarcoAurelio 18:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- MarcoAurelio A couple points of clarification. My team is Wikimedia Research. I sometimes collaborate with the mw:Collaboration team, but they are not "[my] team". I didn't file the phab task, enable Flow, or close the task. Also, please cease with your profanity and asking "what's wrong with [me]". I'd hope that you were "hoping" to accurately summarize a discussion that had clearly come to a conclusion so that we could archive and reference it later. That's a legitimate "hope" if not the only legitimate "hope". Please stop trying to imagine slights where none are intended. --EpochFail (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand why it's acceptable to ask that «those opposing state clearly how they will be negatively affected» by something. Are opinions now valid only if produced by personal interest? I thought we still had some superordinate goals and that the discussions were meant to find consensus on what's the common good; it's strange to read multiple people advocating for the elimination of altruism. I can certainly oppose something that will negatively affect others. Nemo 11:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Nemo. I feel that those who supported the proposal have made their case quite clear. Can you give me a counter-example? At the very least, those who have shown support are gesturing towards the *proposal itself* which is a relatively clearly stated argument. On the other hand, I feel like those in opposition have not provided an argument from which to discuss. "I don't want it" or "It's bad" is not an argument that can be discussed. "This proposal failed before" is neither true nor an argument. (I'd withdrawn the proposal until the maintenance plan of Flow was clear and we could continue the discussion.) Regardless your altruism argument falls flat because the vast majority of those who would be directly affected by this change have signaled support for it (literally everyone but you). You still haven't even addressed the fact that Flow works better for newcomers because the only empirical evidence that we have makes that clear. You haven't addressed my direct experience working with external researchers on talk pages or even discussed the potential boon to our projects it would have if we could get them doing their research the Wikimedian way on Meta. If you'd give me some counter-arguments against the merit of the proposal, I'd address them rather than simply repeating my own. --EpochFail (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Now tell me if this is not some sort of harassment towards those who voted against the proposal the continuous and ad nauseam calls to justify themselves over and over. —MarcoAurelio 15:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Just catching up on this. I was surprised that a proposal to ban Flow always-and-forever from MetaWiki was opened on Christmas eve, and then closed four days later. And that the closing admin justified their closure with the argument that "Meta-Wiki folks are still here" and "99% of the people in this project are against the feature". Furthermore although I have been working on this wiki for almost 6 years now, in both a volunteer and a staff capacity, I've been instructed not to participate in this discussion with my staff account. So apparently I am not a real member of the Meta community, as either a volunteer or a member of the staff? This baffles me. In any case, if the participants in this discussion wish to escalate this conversation to another forum, I'm open to participating there (assuming I'm allowed to). But I no longer have any confidence in the current process, and do not believe that further participation in this discussion is productive. Jtmorgan (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- There is a misunderstanding: #Proposal to remove Flow on Meta-Wiki is not closed, although the harsh meta-comments have certainly succeeded in discouraging further participation. Nemo 21:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody forbids you to comment, Jtmorgan. Not me, not anybody; but if you've been here for so long you'll remember that concerns have been expressed several times when staff accounts are used for non staff issues. Do as you wish, but if you think it's better for you not to participate it's your choice. What I ask anyone is that they comment and they let comment the others in a paceful and constructive way. It is not correct to constatly ask the voters to justify why they vote one way or another. That indeed discourages participation (and I'll say that it's forbidden from the wiki I came from, but that's another subject). That's all. And please if my language is unclear, say so, I'm just en-2. About the closure, no comments. I've clarified the closure of the other discussion above and I stand by it, as I did it in good faith and honestly believe that's the consensus from the participants here. Ironically, the discussion had no point in continuing since Trizek (WMF) enabled the Flow board on the page, which I've just noticed some hours ago. EpochFail says that the discussion didn't ended to challenge the closure. How funny, because then the enabling of the Flow on that page shouldn't have happened either. I'd hope this is not that the Flow team wishes to push this feature ignoring the communities, because then, maybe, we should be having a word with their bosses about this questionable behaviour. And as always, I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I'm not going to tolerate being insulted as EpochFail did just because the result does not please him. —MarcoAurelio 21:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I did not intend to insult you, but rather to question the quality of your closing statement which is clearly an inaccurate representation of events. --EpochFail (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate your striking. And yes, while not intended, I felt insulted, not because you think my closure is wrong, to which you have the right to disagree, but because I feel that you thought and still think that I have some sort of shadow interests in this and that's not true. I'd prefer not to continue arguing over this. Thanks,—MarcoAurelio 18:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- MarcoAurelio, this isn't an argument. This is a discussion. I don't think you have a shadow interest. But I do think you have been not been fair and I think you have made it clear that you do not feel as though I deserve fairness. I'm not the only person to observe that your closing summary is just a recapitulation of your personal opinion. Participating in a discussion in good-faith involves being willing to explain your position and being open to considering other people's positions. If your position is challenged, you should openly discuss the merits of the challenge. Closing a conversation in good-faith involves providing an accurate summary of discussion and weighing the arguments based on their qualities. If anything, editors with advanced rights like us should be held to a higher standard than other editors. You shouldn't just edit in good-faith, you should also clearly demonstrate good-faith. I think we can agree that your closing statement does not achieve a clear demonstration of good-faith. Maybe you'd like to edit it. --EpochFail (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think MarcoAurelio's closure was quite correct. It is also very ridiculous how Research_talk:ORES_paper is now a flow page, despite the closure (and am I seeing correctly that it does not even support indentation of "replies"?!) --MF-W 00:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)