Talk:Proposals for closing projects/Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Copied from the RfC page:

It can't harm policy. Policy is policy, it is not harmable. It can be violated. What can be damaged is our community, by wasting time on useless discussion.

There is a clearly established procedure for project closure proposals, and this procedure was quite likely established to avoid wasting the time of users. The last RfC on a project closure was Requests for comment/Shut down Wikiversity, in 2010. The closer wrote:

An RfC on Meta is not the appropriate place to propose the actual closure of a project but it was better to let this this discussion run its course than to aggravate an already controversial situation by subjecting it to needless red tape. For future reference:
  • Meta has an existing venue for project closure proposals; in the future, use Proposals for closing projects, not an RfC.
  • Given the overwhelming opposition to closing this project, this matter can be considered closed for the foreseeable future and another proposal to close active Wikiversity projects will probably be speedily closed unless some change has occurred or a number of months have elapsed. [...]

The project closure proposals page has instructions for proposing project closure, and it refers to WMF policy, Closing projects policy, which sets up clear standards for even proposing closure. The import of this is that the present RfC, even if it came up with an apparent consensus for closure, would likely be rejected, it would need to be repeated, with, this time, satisfying the requirements of the policy, especially with new and clear notice to the affected wiki. This RfC was open for five days before there was any notice at all to Beta wikiversity, and that notice was so defective that it appears to have not been noticed. It was well over a month before the site notice was activated. Under those conditions, the RfC begins without the participation of those active on the wiki.

Sure, you can discuss anything you want. However, a project closure proposal can be highly disruptive. Properly, the user who proposed this, originally on Babel, should have been advised that (1) closure of an active wiki like Beta is highly unlikely, (2) Beta Wikiversity serves certain purposes long considered critical, that would not be served at Incubator, it is mentioned in the Closing projects policy as a place for content to do from certain Type 2 closures, (3) the Wikiversity concept allows content very different from all the other WMF projects; content that would be speedy deleted everywhere else may be allowable on Wikiversity, because the goals are so different. "POV-pushing," per se, is not an offense on Wikiversity (just as academics at a university may assert opinions and will often express strong views). I can see mass confusion if this content were shoved to Incubator, with users and administrators accustomed to encyclopedic standards (and the other projects are often more restrictive than the 'pedia projects) facing Wikiversity-type content.

By "disruptive," I mean that user time is wasted in argument that cannot accomplish anything, that is argument for the sake of argument. If one wants to close a project, do it right, don't waste everyone's time with an RfC that can't win.

Meta is not a debate society. It's a coordinating wiki, with participants who have a great deal to do other than beat dead horses.

I proposed closure, and that is why I did not respond to this comment on the RfC page. Closure is closure. Please don't debate a motion to close on the page. Support it or oppose it or stand aside. Debating a motion to close is a classic gaffe, it defeats the purpose of the motion if it is allowed.

As I mentioned, had I realized the situation, that this RfC was completely out to lunch from the beginning, I'd not have commented in it, I would have simply closed it, as I've done with other out-of-place RfCs, always successfully. But once I have commented, tradition is that I shouldn't close it. So I proposed closure. I don't see Vogone's comment as opposing closure. It's arguing dicta, not substance. Even if this RfC had been proper, it failed. It's done, it's over. Let's turn out the lights and go home. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Abd: I replied to your comments on the RfC. I'd like to see your reply. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PRS, okay, I'll reply there, because you request it. However, I've moved a close, on multiple grounds, and I have seen no comment on closure, only useless argument over the process, whether or not this RfC was proper as filed. Notice: it was filed, as stated, by someone who didn't comment in it. That is, itself, a Very Bad Idea. It's one thing to suggest to a user how to do things, but RfCs take up a lot of editor time. Nothing good was going to come from this.
This RfC has been open for six months. Nothing new is being added. It's time to close, my opinion. We have RfCs on meta that lead to actual results. This one can't, by policy, because it was defectively set up. Did those commenting realize that? Did anyone say, "We are just discussing this here, purely as a discussion, this is not an actual proposal for project closure, i.e., that could lead to a closure request as policy provides, because it's in the wrong place and required elements were missing and can't be supplied after the fact, this late. Of course, someone can always violate policy, who cares?
One of the reasons wikis are so famously inefficient is that people argue against nothing, when it doesn't matter, it has no effect, we argue just to be right, we will even argue at length against proposals that have no second, no hope of any success. And then we will argue about arguing, always justifying everything done in the past. Never getting what a waste of time it's been.
I'm really wondering now, what if, instead of commenting in this RfC, I'd just closed it? What would have happened? I saw the RfC, thought it was a serious proposal, and added arguments. As part of that I researched the policy. Had I researched the policy first -- it has been changed (actually, created) since I last looked at these issues -- I'd not have commented, I'd just have closed. Is there anyone here who would be disagreeing with such a close? --Abd (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care, leave the thing open if you want to waste more time on this. --Abd (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't care then why do you go to great lengths (of text) to explain your multi-paragraph reasonings for closure? You say that "one of the reasons wikis are so famously inefficient is that people argue against nothing" yet by your very contributions to this RFC page you are participating to the same effect. What purpose do you hope to accomplish by closing this discussion? Having someone spend yet another wasted year on the proposals for closing projects page arguing even more pointlessly about whether to close the project or not? Shifting the discussion has virtually no effect except extending the pointlessness of it needlessly. It's better to have the decision here and now on this RFC page, where if there is a consensus to close then the project will close, and if there is a consensus not to close then there will be established precedent for not rehashing this at proposals for closing projects again, at least for another year. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I care about people, TCNSV, and I was asked to comment, so I did. How about doing something more useful than ignorant wikilawyering? You recently complained that I was, you thought, wikistalking you. It's looking very much like you are here only because I suggested closure. You don't care about this proposal, either way, you have not commented on it. I am, in fact, highly involved with Wikiversity, you know that, and interested in supporting new Wikiversity language projects. Had I realized that this RfC was improper, on the face, not to mention dead in the water, I'd simply have closed it. I wonder, would you then have reverted the closure?
Closure can happen without a discussion, that's often done, when the result is obvious. Or someone can add a closure poll. That also can be done. It is, however, except for this tempest in a teapot, which you have been stirring, quite obvious that this RfC is done, cooked, finished, ready to close and stop distracting users who look at Requests for comment. Now I am, myself, going to do something useful. --Abd (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing the history here[edit]

This RfC was originally started as a discussion on Babel, June 23. It was moved here five days later. However, there was very little comment until August, until a Beta Wikiversity sysop, August 4, added the proposed closure to Announcements and the site notice on Beta Wikiversity. Then support and oppose comments poured in. Before August 4, there weren't even Support and Oppose sections, it was purely a discussion.

Now, had the Beta wikiversity sysop realized that this RfC, as filed, could not result in closure of Beta Wikiversity, by policy? If so, would he have created the Announcements and Site notice to ask users to comment here?

It's looking as if, had it not been for that announcement, this would have been totally dead in the water. Only one user commented after July 2, until August 4. This was that user's comment.

It's irregular to change the title of an RfC after it has substantial comment, by the way. Probably harmless, in this case. Were the page an actual project closure page, it would have also been improper to mix two closures on one page...., and then to convert the RfC, with comments relating to both proposed closures, into an RfC apparently about one closure only. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments about Abd[edit]

  • These comments were written in response to [1], and have been moved here because, like much of what is now being added to the RfC, it has nothing to do with the subject of the RfC, but appears to be the response of a user who doesn't understand what I write very well, but seems quite sure something is wrong with it. That resembles his response to Beta. He doesn't understand it, to him it should not even exist, but he's sure something is wrong with it. His idea of how to fix it, apparently, with only a few edits on a Wikiversity site, was to request sysop tools so he could start swinging the deletion axe. Failing at that, he came to meta to attempt to get the project closed. He appears, as well, to believe that local wiki policy should be decided at meta, see his full comment at [2]. The comment I removed from the RfC page is below --Abd (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have only a few edits on Beta, because I'm one of the most active users on English Wikiversity and am not involved in creating new language Wikiversities. However, it looks to me like Beta does need help from those who understand WV policies and how they differ from those of other WMF wikis, so, today, I started looking around.
  • As to "speaking to bot," [3], I did not speak to a bot, I noticed a bot edit and spoke to the community who might see my edit in Recent Changesa or later. If AtUkr doesn't understand what I wrote there, well, his cluelessness is not encouraging. Meta also does welcomes by bot, of accounts on creation, which, with SUL automatic log-in, happens just from looking at the wiki. What was remarkable about that bot edit was that my display had lit up with the Talk page notice *on my first look at a page on Incubator.* That is not just fast, that is Fast as Hell. We don't do bot welcomes on Wikiversity, because it's useful in RCP to see that a user hasn't been welcomed. We welcome when there is at least one harmless edit, and when users welcome from the new user log, we ask them not to do it. I'll say that a bot edit welcoming me doesn't make me feel welcome; it, in fact, indicates to me that nobody cares about welcoming new users. When I welcome someone, they are then on my watchlist and I'm likely to see if they have problems, and I will actually help them if they need it. --Abd (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that signifies what? I had no idea if a human would see my Talk page. I had forgotten all about it, until now. There is something of mild interest there, but it has no relationship at all to this RfC. --Abd (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved further discussion here because this is more about the user who started the RfC -- or about me -- than about the RfC itself. At Ukr wrote above that he replied on the RfC page. His reply on the RfC page refers to here, where there is nothing of significance to the RfC.

However, he wrote, in addition, [4]

[...]What about my request for custodianship, it was closed October 29, 2013, that means this RfC couldn't be payback. I think that closing my request was payback. Also I can't understand I do it almost every day on en.wv, by placing a speedy deletion template. So you say that I can place template on Main Page and it'll be deleted, don't you? It;s interesting...
The request for custodianship was filed dated June 14, 2013.[5]. The RfC was filed June 23. At that point nobody had responded to the CfC. AtUkr was frustrated, I surmise. He considered Beta a mess (and the Wikiversities can indeed be a mess, long story.) He considered the solution to be deletion. And he thought that to cause deletion, he needed sysop tools. He wrote, there, that he did not "like to turn to other administrators for help."
The timing supports the payback theory.
The CfC was closed October 29, yes, but that was purely a formality, this is common on the Wikiversities. It was not going anywhere, there were no support or oppose comments. There was one question asked by a user, he did not respond, he had obviously abandoned it himself. So for him to turn around and claim that the close was payback is preposterous.
I come across deletable material on Wikiversity all the time. Mostly it is unnecessary redirects. We routinely move arguably inappropriate educational resources to user space. When a non-admin does this, it leaves behind a redirect. If there are no incoming links, we routinely delete the redirect. I do this all the time (i.e., place a deletion template, they are acted on within hours, normally). Any page that is obviously useless for educational purpose is easily deleted, and the process can be set up by any user. It could even be done by an IP editor. It takes moments for an admin to review the files in the speedy deletion category and either delete or remove the template. Any editor can remove the template, and then, we have two more processes: Proposed deletion, which is a slow deletion, it typically expires in three months, and Request for deletion, which sets up a community discussion. These have become rare. (They were often concluding with "moved to user space.")
I turns out that users rarely get upset when their creations are moved to user space. They commonly get upset when their work is deleted!
It appears that AtUkr wanted to make unilateral deletions. We avoid that. Custodians do delete spam and vandalism routinely, on their own initiative, but not anything that looks like a good faith attempt to create an educational resource. While we have no clear policy on it, yet, custodians are agreeable to, themselves, placing a speedy deletion template, to be acted on by another custodian. That ensures transparency. It's working. The big part of the job is identifying the speediable pages. And any user can do that, if AtUkr was interested in doing that, he could have done it.
No, it appears that he wanted to be in charge, not to have to ask anyone. Speedy templates are not personal requests. Global sysops could act on them, if we needed that. We don't need it.
The argument about the main page is bizarre. It actually makes my point. I cannot delete the main page because it would not have the agreement of another user. Wikis are community projects. Those who think that they, single-handedly, will "clean up" a wiki often make more of a mess than they fix.
Looking at Beta's Candidates for speedy deletion, there are two pages and one image in it. One page, a user page, had the category on it but was not a deletion request. I just fixed that. The other page is an author request, deletion requested yesterday. The image has a template asserting license violation. That request was from seven days ago. It's legitimate, but file deletion requests are sometimes not so quick to be addressed, it's a structural problem on the wikiversities, where Fair Use is allowed (in practice) but not always properly claimed. Since that file is unused, and the user who uploaded it is long gone, I'd delete it.
I remember when en.wikiversity had a full screen of speedy deletion requests. Currently, the speedy deletion category is empty. Neither Beta nor en.wikiversity need more custodians to handle file deletion. They are being maintained.
The work that is needed on en.wikiversity is essentially organization and categorization of content, and, to be stable, that requires consensus. So we are working on that, and sorting and categorization are proceeding. Beta would likely be the same, but I'd expect a small-language wikiversity to be chaotic at first. --Abd (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3rd good way (maybe).[edit]

Only move test Wikiversities to Incubator, then change domain "beta.wikiversity.org" to "mul.wikiversity.org" for .
That's because:

  • There has two Chinese versions (hans & hant) of Main Page, however betawv can't support LanguageConverter (it works very well as 4 localizations on existed 5 Chinese WikiProjects, exclude zhwikt & zhws?!), and too many Chinese pages are hans only or hant only, so 2 versions can't or hardly to merge in the near further.
  • Per Tech/News/2014/07 , dates of Chinese, Japanese, Korean & Hungarian are using YYYY-MM-DD, not MM-DD-YYYY/DD-MM-YYYY, but betawv... That'll make native speakers of 4 languages to unfriendly and/or angrily.
  • Again, too many wvs are unclear.

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If participants in a language want to use Incubator instead of Beta, I see no reason to prohibit them. I would assume that if a fork arises, i.e, an Incubator version and a Beta version, those users may decide on a single solution. If not, a proposed project procedure, to convert to a separate project, may refer to both versions, and some decisions may need to be made about differing policies or procedures. Down the road.
The date issue is a choice that must be made for any project. Incubator has presumably made this choice, also Beta, and the choice was likely made when those projects were set up. This is, I believe, a developer issue. I personally prefer YYYY-MM-DD, and using leading zeros, but not enough to be exercised about it. As long as dates are clear and in a format recognized by common spreadsheets, no problem for me. Who is "angry" about this?
The "unclear" is a reference to EDP policy. That is a project-by-project decision, otherwise global policy applies. That's not "unclear," it is merely not necessarily much enforced, i.e., there can be delays in enforcement. Global policy can be a bit of an "unfunded mandate" which doesn't get done unless there are volunteers to do it. Some of this work is done by bot. This is not a difficult issue, except for projects which allow Fair Use, i.e, which have an EDP in place. There is no project where Fair Use is unclear, because the global policy applies if there is no local exception (EDP). However, it's likely that Beta, for example, will want to implement an EDP, and there is now some move toward that.
Incubator simply disallows file uploads by any but bureaucrats. Unless that were changed, that would make it inadvisable to host "educational resources" at Incubator, just as it is inadvisable for an encyclopedia, except temporarily. Projects like the Wikipedias have common need for fair use files, so almost all allow them. Those few that don't, my suspicion, simply don't want the administrative hassle created by them. We are actively working on this, on en.Wikiversity, setting up procedures to efficiently deal with the fair use issue, moving files that have no fair use rational to efficient deletion, while keeping files either permanently, with clearly established fair use, or setting up temporary fair use, for the educational process, -- that is part of the Wikiversity goal, the goal is not merely "content" -- and thus with the machine-readable non-free category that WMF policy requires as a matter of supporting re-users, who can choose to clean up content if they do not wish to likewise claim fair use. --Abd (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The move of this RfC[edit]

This request for comment, as it was created, violated the Closing projects policy, as shown in a motion to close. The requirements of that policy are not merely formalities, because if a discussion takes place without those requirements being met, the discussion can head off in an uninformed direction. Essentially, it is not fair.

When the motion to close was made, reply was that it was harmless to discuss this as a request for comment; perhaps if the RfC showed sufficient interest, then the formal process would be followed, to have a similar discussion all over again, but at least this new one would be a real project closure discussion, not a fake one.

Now, the page has been moved under Proposals for closing projects, as if it were a proper proposal. Two legitimate options:

  1. Move it back. Maybe close it to put it out of its misery, if consensus is apparent, or with a no-consensus close.
  2. Close it in place as an improper proposal, as presented.

Leaving it open here can only create more useless waste of time. --Abd (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer option #1. Did not understand this page move either. Vogone (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposals_for_closing_projects/Move_Beta_Wikiversity_to_Incubator&oldid=10278130"