Talk:Requesting wiki configuration changes
Please remember to:
Please relax the rules around community consensus
There is an open bug (T168203 - for the mobile site at the moment where the English Wikipedia logo is showing for a variety of projects where it shouldn't). This is a regression/bug which we are slowly trying to fix but these guidelines as written are slowing down that process by insisting that community's ask for consensus. This is a bit silly in my opinion and common sense should prevail here. If English Wikipedia showed the Wikitionary logo we wouldn't expect the English community to request the logo should be corrected, would we? Yet, this is what we are doing here.
Suggested bullet under "Gather local on-wiki community consensus for the change;"
- Use common sense. In some cases this may not be necessary. For example, if the change relates to a bug in localisation.
- I would support adding a proviso to this page saying that fixing very obvious bugs or mistakes, such as the logo on the mobile version of a wiki not corresponding to the desktop version, or a typo in the namespace configuration (such as "Potral" instead of "Portal"), does not require community consensus. actually just read Jon's proposal properly and I support his proposed text in preference to mine! This, that and the other (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- I feel the same as This. Obvious mistakes need to be corrected without much bureaucracy, but we should ensure as well the clause is not a catch-all one that anyone can use to circunvent community consensus, and its interpretation should be strict. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think that obvious bugs/mistakes do not require community consensus. We should add something like "Use common sense" to the rules. I'd appreciate adding something like "Sysadmins have ultimate authority on what kind of changes require community consensus and what kind don't". By the way, some tickets are processed w/o explicit consensus right now, for example minor logo differences etc.. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand your request for clarification.. I guess what I'm getting at is that with these bugs community consensus has already been required by the fact the desktop logo is already defined - there is a precedent. It's great to involve community in these changes as we are not native speakers but that's not asking for consensus that's asking for testing/feedback. Jdlrobson (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think you were just given bad advice. Not everything needs to go through this "process" and this really looks like a case in which it wasn't necessary. It would have been if someone was requesting the wordmark to be explicitly in a different language (maybe a fallback one). --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Wofür muss es Community-Konsens geben?
(Ich hab's mal an einen prominenteren Ort kopiert)
- Für die Einführung als Test, also um überhaupt erst mal beurteilen zu können, ob das Feature was taugt, ist ein Konsens erforderlich
- Sobald es als Beta-Feature vorhanden ist, kann es ohne Konsens per ordre de Mufti von der WMF oktroyiert werden.
Das erinnert mich fatal an das Vorgehen beim MV, als auch ein Feature zum, Testen eingeführt wurde, und dann sogar gegen den ausdrücklichen Willen der Community mit Gewalt gegen diese eingeführt wurde. OK, SuperPutsch ist inzwischen offiziell Geschichte, eine tatsächliche Verhaltensänderung in solch eindeutigen Fällen ist allerdings nicht wirklich erkennbar, es gab noch nicht mal eine offizielle Entschuldigung seitens der WMF für dieses bösartige Vorgehen. Sollte dem tatsächlich so sein, dann wäre der einzige Schutz der Communities vor irgendwelchen kraftmeierischen Alleingängen der WMF ein komplett neophobes Verhalten, damit so etwas wie dem MV, oder gar dem idiotischen Flow in Zukunft, gar nicht erst die Tür zum Test geöffnet würde, weil damit schon vor der erforderlichen Evaluation jegliches Mitbestimmungsrecht abgetreten würde. Ist dem tatsächlich so? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 06:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Translation (Links are above):
As we discussed this in an quite senseless procedure to get a community consensus for some very minor decision, in this case to test a new skin as a beta-feature, the following scenario was sketched:
- A consensus is needed for the test, to get some information about the feature for the first time in the wild, and to be able to evaluate the feature at all
- Once it's in the project as a beta-feature, it can be forced on in the project without community consensus by a simple order from SF
This reminds me in a fatal way of the implementation of the MV. The MV was as well first introduced as a beta-feature, an then implemented as default even against the explicit and unambiguous wishes of the community with the use of force and might. OK, SuperPutsch is now officially history, but a actual change in behaviour is not really noticeable, not even an official apology about this mean behaviour was made up to now. Should this really be the case the only way for a community to shield itself from another unilateral show of force by the WMF would be a complete neophobic behaviour to let something like with the MV, or in the future with this Flow-junk, not even for testing inside the projects, because afterwards all community decisions are futile and can be disregarded. Is this really this way? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 06:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)