Talk:Global renamers

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is for discussions related to the Global renamers page.

  Please remember to:

  For older conversations you can see the archive index.

Wikimedia Community Logo.svg


Membership 80% requirement[edit]

I wasn't able to find where These requests will run for at least two weeks, and require consensus for promotion and a support margin of at least 80%. has been discussed. Since my actions in ignoring this alleged prescription facing a strong canvassing campaign was deemed "ridiculous" @MF-Warburg: will surely point me the relevant discussion. I'd also be glad to see policy prescription protecting canvassing, but that's an offtopic here. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It was there already in the first revision of the page. It seems like this was so generally accepted that it was never discussed in 3 years. What a tremendous policy. For the record, ridiculous I deemed something else, as explained on SRGP. --MF-W 17:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There were extensive and somewhat decentralized discussions when the policy was made. Obviously not every provision was discussed, but I wager if it wasn't then it was generally accepted. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
SRGP template has been in use for the same time length, with a wider "audience" and it states the opposite. It could be argued it has then the same "amount" of consensus these lines have. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. The two statements aren't necessarily incompatible; the consensus part is what is important, and obviously the SRGP guideline is to stop the sort of canvassing and abusive voting that happened on the request in question. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
This policy states a precise numerical requirement, while the template (which has the same "degree" of approval) states comments (not votes) should be weighted. Then the policy should be clarified or corrected, currently it legitimizes canvassing and cross-vetoing. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not think that asking for 80% support for this is right, and suggest to lower the threshold and set it to at least 75% as we do with admin. That the steward elections demands their candidates to get at least 80% does not mean that everything here at meta needs to have 80% of support to pass. —MarcoAurelio 15:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Any threshold will transform a discussion into a vote. Do we have consensus to use a vote instead of a discussion? --Vituzzu (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
For global sysops, rollbackers and renamers I'd certainly prefer a vote instead of a discussion. It's simpler, closure is objective using a pure mathematical count, no CoI or 'misvalue' of argument-like discussions, etc. Having non-english speakers produce arguments is discriminatory. And while Meta is in theory multilingual, it is not. Certainly I could post arguments in Spanish, you in Italian and other user is Upper Silesian. And the result would be... using google translate, who translates as they please. Sorry, but I don't think it is right. Keep It Simple: a vote. People vote, closer counts and results are enacted. But obviously elegibility criteria for voters should be set for it to work. —MarcoAurelio 15:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Ways to discount canvassing then? --Vituzzu (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly canvassing should not be allowed, nor sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Elections should be a fair ground. —MarcoAurelio 15:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) As for renamers, I do not believe we should be preventing local announcements. These users are usually local users and mostly unknown by the metawiki community, as opposed to GR/GS etc. candidates. Therefore, input from their homewikis is even desirable. --Vogone (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind neutral announcements. In fact, on eswiki, we're required for each RfA to post announcements on the village pump and the mailing list. Such announcements should be neutrally written of course. Problem comes when you post an announcement on a wiki you know the user is 'hated', and do so intentionally in an attempt or hope that the election be sunk. Right to be informed vs. willfull sabotage? Sometimes the line is way thin. —MarcoAurelio 15:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Announcements will de facto move the choice to the relevant local community. It wouldn't be a problem per se but we should be aware of this. I'll write on renamers mailing list to ask for comments, we currently have to choose: vote/non vote, if vote requirements to vote and number of needed supports. Discussions have lower formal requirements, a vote must have higher standards. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not like the idea of hard % limits. As Vituzzu suggests, that would change it from a consensus-based discussion into a vote, and that's really not the way the various Wikipedias work best. I think consensus is the best approach, and we should trust Stewards to judge that consensus (and, as an aside, I think Vituzzu got it right in this one, and I'm sad it turned out the way it did). As there does not seem to be any prior consensus for the 80% rule, I don't think it can be enforced. Perhaps a suggested guideline of, say, 75-80%, with the closing Steward empowered to judge the consensus? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's my proposal, softening the current wording without indefinitely lowering requirements. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been trying to think of why I wrote in 80% and consensus to promote - to give credit to past me, I'm sure there was a reason, but I can't remember it. I'd prefer to avoid a very wordy addition like your proposal. If we are going to change it, let's just make it "consensus to promote" like is used for global sysops. No need to mention any of the other stuff then, and certainly no need to duplicate that information across all the global rights pages when we can just write it on SRGP. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You maybe used another policy as draft, "consensus to promote" would be the best solution, I wrote a longer version just to try meeting feedbacks. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I also do not enjoy the idea of putting any % as a fixed threshold in a decision-making process. I think that the decision made at the strength of arguments is more fairly achieved than by simply counting votes. If we are used to evaluate the explanations and points in favor of or against the user's approval in requests for global sysops/rollbackers (as well as "the weight given to the input of those involved" in such activities), why not simply doing the same here? This should almost decimate the influence of practices like vote-stacking or stealth canvassing, and prevent them from adversely affect the outcome of the process. "Consensus to promote" is by far the best approach, imo. RadiX 02:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that any required percentage makes the procedure implicitly a vote. A vote maybe easier to interpret by just counting but absolutely needs more rules (e.g. voters eligibility) that are harder to enforce and is definately vulnerable to canvassing and/or puppetry. I think Vogone has a point about local anouncements for GRs. A template for a local announcement and/or a rule that it should be done by a non involved part (a steward?) could be an idea. —Ah3kal (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The procedure stands as it is since the introduction of the global renamers, and even if it appears a bit ambiguous I don't see any reason why a change shall be required at the very moment. Project intention is not to setup more and more rules, and we are at a meta meta level here already. Vituzzu applied reasonable common sense in his evaluation, and even if that may or may not be wrong because he already commented in the discussion, this all in all doesn't justify a all project rule change based on a single incident. --Krd 08:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a change, but an approval or change, currently we are in an ambiguous state. I prefer the "consensus to promote" solution but I'd prefer a clear-cut % rather than the current ambiguity. Deal with announcements I have another doubt, how to choose local communities to notify? --Vituzzu (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather oppose any strict threshold. Decisions on Meta should rely on technical insight and social experience. Both qualities being assessed in the Stewards' elections, and it's their job to do decisions, not to count votes. Responsibilities are delegated to prevent dysfunctioning communities from disturbing the project's core. --MBq (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, for a long time we liked to point out that stewards don't decide. However, I fear that has changed a bit since global permissions are being granted "by consensus" which is occasionally not obvious, but has to be determined first. --MF-W 00:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What a crazy situation that the policy (here) and the SRGP header have different policies/descriptions about when the right may be granted (and how crazy that nobody noticed it until now). I agree it should be rectified. I support Ajraddatz's opinion that using the same wording ("consensus") as for GS would be best. --MF-W 00:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I also support the addition of a way to better handle this. Maybe by borrowing the sentence "The discussion is not a vote; comments must present specific points in favor of or against the user's approval." from the GS policy. RadiX 00:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

So, how is this going? Either we remove the % requirement altogether or lower it and mention that while not a vote it's a orientative criteria for the closing steward, or what? —MarcoAurelio 11:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

marking for translation[edit]

The versions since 5 Decembre 2016 haven't been marked for translation yet. Can someone take a look upon this? --Bjarlin (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And the discussion above about the 80% requirement and "discussion versus vote" didn't lead to any change of wording until now on one of the two pages. Thus, shall that remain the way it has been and both pages have different wordings further on? What rules are to be applied now for current and further permission requests? --Bjarlin (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)