Talk:Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons interwiki prefix

Active discussions

ttlEdit

Is this an open end poll? At the moment there are only supporters, no opposing reasons, but still polling ... how long? a×pdeHello! 11:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

reverted re-open of RfCEdit

The close as resolved, based on clear consensus, was reverted with [1]. The user then added this comment:

Temporarily reopening ticket. The C: prefix is still being used on hiwiki, creating interwiki and namespace-prefix conflict, see hi:Special:PrefixIndex/C: which automatically gets redirected by the MediaWiki software to hi:Special:PrefixIndex/श्रेणी:. As Mayur seems to be retired, I've posted a notice to the hiwiki community on what is hopefully their village pump, linked from the English Wikipedia' Village Pump in the interwiki sidebar on the left. If anyone could find another way to contact the hiwiki admins, perhaps through email, and preferably find one who can speak English and comment here, it'd be much appreciated. Or find some way to resolve this issue. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this, moving the comment here. The issue of hiwiki was addressed in the RfC. If it is not resolved, the user is encouraged to work toward that. --Abd (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

bugzilla:4676 shows an overexcited comment by this user on February 2, and responses indicating that the concern raised here and there is spurious. We do not reopen RfCs because one user imagines something is awry. It's fine to discuss this RfC here, to ask questions about unresolved issues, etc. However, there is no unresolved issue here. --Abd (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It has not been addressed, as evidenced by Mayur's retirement and the lack of response from the hiwiki community. I've asked the closing admin Tiptoety if I had permission to reverse the decision, and I've obtained it, supplying a legitimate reason for reopening. Why do you take issue with this? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
"We do not reopen RfCs because one user imagines something is awry." Your claims are patently false. There has been no consensus that this is the case. Who is this "we" you refer to? Are you again speaking as the voice of the community? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. --Abd (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That is arrogance, plain and simple. You do not speak for community consensus, "as if you have a privileged position". I am as much a part of the community, I disagree, therefore there is no consensus that RFCs should be closed in your preferred way. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there a current policy on closing/opening RfCs? We should at least have some guidelines. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I was qualified to reopen the RFC, having been given permission from the original admin who closed it. I've tried to lay down some guidelines over at Talk:Requests for comment, but mostly because there's so few users paying attention, it's mostly Abd trying to assert his way of conducting RFCs rather than produce any meaningful discussion forward. The method seems to be, "revert TCNSV, then talk later" followed by a long thread either on the talkpage of the affected page or on my talkpage. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Further nonsense followed by pontificating; I'm really tired and this seems to be a long-term dispute in which I've wasted at least a thousand kilobytes responding to Abd. If only there was some third party more interested in mediating this. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • What's "this," to be mediated? This is the Talk page for an RfC. There was an improper reversion of a very old close. I reverted. That's it.
  • PRS, There is long-standing wiki practice. I don't know that meta has specific guidelines, and I'm suggesting we develop them, because this doesn't need to be complicated.
  • Tiptoety did, on the face, give permission, however, it's not at all clear that Tiptoety investigated. I read his comment, more or less, as "you can reopen the issue." Had TCNSV referred to that permission, I'd still have thought the re-open improper and might then have closed it myself. This was total consensus. TCNSV has now raised an issue which was already considered in the RfC, and by the time Tiptoety "gave permission", John Vandenberg, whose questions were referred to by TCNSV in his request of Tiptoety, had already commented in Bugzilla:4676, with [2], totally demolishing the argument that there was a problem. John Vandenberg had previously investigated and his work, back then, led the only opposing user in the RfC to convert to support. TCNSV's comment in the "ticket" was hysterical. So Tiptoety was misled, whether or not TCNSV intended that.
  • TCNSV rapidly makes disputes very personal. Instead of addressing the substantial points raised, the matter becomes a claim of harassment, as can clearly be seen above.
  • There is no issue requiring re-opening of this RfC. I think I'm done here. --Abd (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I did not try to make it personal, in fact I asked an honest question on why you believe reopening RFCs is improper, and I think claiming that I'm trolling and refusing to respond makes the situation more personal than anything. Your response so far about any perceived harm related to reopening RFCs has amounted to "it's tradition", while I gave a detailed explanation on my talkpage that explains why I think reverting RFC closures is not inappropriate, which I've done after I've contacted the admin previously responsible for closing it. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • As usual, this issue remains unresolved, and because of the closure of the RFC, the impending expected response from hiwiki concerning this matter will be ignored and turned away when they see the discussion has already 'closed'. The RFC is itself an open talkpage in the mainspace for all of the Wikimedia wikis to engage amongst themselves, and by stifling the discussion through closure, it does more harm to leave it in this state than reopening again (for which the repeated counterclaim of harm has still yet to be demonstrated). Were hiwiki to come to a consensus, it would affect the outcome of this RFC, and would be documented on this page, which I will note with a separate ticket sent to Bugzilla concerning ticket 4676. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
All indications are that there is no issue. I did not close, Tiptoety did, following 100% consensus, and including consideration of the hiwiki issue. You are beating a dead horse, TCNSV. You just attempted to open the RfC again, using the device of quoting Billinghurst on removing comments from Talk pages. I reverted, and I will notify Billinghurst. If hiwiki comes to consensus that there is a problem, we would surely address it. They won't, that is a near-certainty. --Abd (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
They can't come to a consensus because you closed the RFC, you're stifling the consensus process and their ability to comment on this page. You still have yet to provide an argument beyond "it's tradition" as to why leaving RFCs open are harmful. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
You have totally missed the point of a meta RfC. Hiwiki can easily come to a consensus on hiwiki. They may also come here and propose action. Hiwiki does not come to a consensus on meta. Different user base.
Hiwiki users are not "stifled." They may comment here on this Talk page. They may agree or disagree with you. They may file a new RfC, raising any new or unresolved issues. If one knowledgeable user from hiwiki comes here and says, "yes, we have a problem, John Vandenberg was mistaken," we would then have an issue to address and resolve, but we would be very unlikely to reopen this RfC to handle it. TCNSV, by continually arguing about process that you clearly have little experience with, and don't understand, you have neglected the substance. There is zero evidence that hiwiki is actually using the c: prefix. It might still be interpreted there, but the real issue is how much disruption would a global change to c: for Commons, instead of c: for Category on hiwiki, cause? Apparently somewhere between zero and very little.
Re-opening this RfC would then dredges a 2011 RfC out of the Archive, cluttering up the RfC list, causing many users to uselessly look at it, wondering why meta can't get it together to handle something three years old, and you are wasting my time now by tendentious argument over process, with every invented justification you can dredge up, while you remain totally free to address substance here.
If you raised an issue on hiwiki, go back and see if anyone commented. Give then a link to this page, there is nothing remotely wrong with that. But there already was investigation of this issue in 2012. It was resolved then. You have not told us why you think it is not resolved. It is "used," that is, it is still recognized by the software setup, perhaps. That is something small that would need to be fixed, that's all, and this was known. There are apparently no actual links that use it, and no opposition from hiwiki to the change in process. Just from you.
You aren't getting it, so this is useless. I've done my work here. If there is more disruption, this escalates and moves entirely out of my hands. That's all.--Abd (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's easy. The current setup at hiwiki allow people to use it merely by typing C:Foo into the searchbar. There is the usage, plus John Vandenberg showing evidence of two links on the bugzilla ticket page. There was consensus to have C: become an alias for the category system on hiwiki, which was why it was enabled by the devs, otherwise the devs would have dismissed the request out of hand as being completely arbitrary. It takes a consensus also to remove that C: prefix from their software, in order to enact the change proposed here. Closing this RFC and holding your hands to your ears prevents this issue from being resolved. I've already explained how Mayur did not address the issue to his hiwiki community when he retired, and why this issue still exists today.
"dredges a 2011 RfC out of the Archive, cluttering up the RfC list, causing many users to uselessly look at it, wondering why meta can't get it together to handle something three years old" What's wrong with that? If it's an issue that's unresolved, it should be treated as such, and I've seen no evidence on your part to determine that it has been resolved. Disruption is when hiwiki users find out they can no longer access the C: prefix to look for their categories. This talkpage is not obvious enough for hiwiki users to comment; they'd be more likely to comment on the actual RFC page, and we should leave it open to them to comment.
"Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which broader input can be requested...It may also be useful to gain wider input regarding conflicts on Meta, or unresolved issues on other Wikimedia projects with the hopes of obtaining resolution." The top of the RFC main page is clear that anyone can comment in it, for whatever reason that may be necessary. We should not prevent them from doing so, by prematurely closing an RFC before its time is due, or the issues resolved.
And you still have yet to provide an argument beyond "it's tradition" as to why leaving RFCs open are harmful. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Abd: Given that no one else has bothered to comment here and Tiptoety, the original closer whom I have contacted, only states that he 'stands by' his original closure, I'm inclined to believe that the real truth is that you've been speaking to an empty podium here on this talkpage with me and perhaps PiRSquared as the only audience members. The fact is, no one gives a damn what happens to the RFC, no one else has bothered to comment on this talkpage, about this matter, nor on the main Talk:Requests for comment page where I had proposed some guidelines to closing RFCs properly. I'll repeat: no one gives a damn. Therefore, seeing as how nobody cares what happens to this RFC, there is nothing to suggest a 'harm' of the sort you alluded to supposedly caused by reopening an RFC subpage. Your final comment: "I've done my work here. If there is more disruption, this escalates and moves entirely out of my hands" was very vague, and I'd like you to clarify whether or not you still prefer to continue this argument further. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not care to argue about this at all. You have asked for reasons for my action; I gave them, and I have created an essay discussing RfC process a bit, User:Abd/RfC study. Discussion about close process is welcome on the attached talk page there.
Escalation in wiki process means "brought to wider attention," in w:WP:DR process, efforts to find consensus "escalate" from step to step. I never do this by personal approach to an administrator, as an example, unless I am explicitly asking the administrator to mediate -- as distinct from requesting saction. I am not predicting what I would do, but my goal is generally to balance addressing issues with minimizing disruption. --Abd (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
As that page is not highly watched, being brand new and hard to locate in one single user's userspace, I will not be commenting on its talkpage. There is nearly zero chance that anyone else besides the host of the page and I, who would have initiated the discussion, would participate in such. Therefore, I advise bringing it to Wikimedia Forum which is more easily watched and receives greater attention.
There is no formal "dispute resolution" process on Meta, because there has never been any need for one - there are venues to settle disputes between users, including the users' talkpages, Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat, or even opening one of the subpages, such as this one, of the parent requests for comment page. The plain reality is that if anyone had this on their watchlist, which I highly doubt, they would have responded to this talkpage by now, but the fact is no one cares. In the bugzilla ticket I linked to above, I expressed concern what the implications of this RFC are, nothing more. John Vandenberg agreed to assist me, and was commended due diligence for doing so, attempting to facilitate the resolution of these problems more quickly and expediently than before. On the other hand, you've done nothing of the sort he has done, but start up this discussion here about whether or not the closure was 'correct' or not. I've yet to see the issue has been resolved, and in fact several users are now popping up on bugzilla:4676 indicating they believe Hindi Wikipedia has unfairly had been given no time at all to react to this situation properly, and thus no say in the matter.
Closure has been disruptive, as I argued, because it assumes that all relevant issues have been closed; as evidenced here, and on the bugzilla ticket, that is not the case and the issue of hiwiki is still very much open. Anyone who can access the hiwiki software can see that for oneself, simply type C:Foo into the searchbar on hiwiki and observe it automatically redirect to the equivalent of enwiki's category namespace. It would disrupt thousands of hiwiki users who might utilize this feature on a daily basis, typing C: into the searchbar for easy linking to categories, rather than whatever string of words is translated into their native tongue for Category: Of course, the worst part of it all is that they cannot complain to Meta about the change, because the previous RFC on the matter had been 'closed' with 'consensus' (of the English Wikipedia crowd only, as usual) already made about this decision.
The advantages of reopening an RFC over restarting a brand new one which basically repeats the arguments from the previous RFC include the fact it's easier, not harder, to read. One does not have to continually jump between the two RFCs and refer back to the older one for additional details conveniently left out in the younger RFC, as again demonstrated by Requests for comment/Danny B.’s abuse of admin rights. Thus your argument that opening RFCs with links back to the old one holds no water. It would necessarily obfuscate the history of the old RFC.
On the other hand, you note the disruption of the RFC process arising from reopening old RFCs: "RfCs multiply without actually improving decision process and the quality of the project". At last, you finally get around to addressing my points, rather than continually evading the question with 'it's tradition', as you've done so many times before. My counterargument is that there is no problem at all leaving RFCs on meta open when the issues within them have not been resolved. Why would it matter whether it damages the quality of the project, when we already have dubious stuff like Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, which I've brought to Meta:Proposed page moves? Nothing is evident here that would bring the project into disrepute, and in fact Meta is supposed to be a central communication hub for users from various wikis, especially from those small communities with no formal self-oversight process, to vent their various grievances.
But back onto this topic, the power of the enwiki community is such as to disrupt the functioning of other wikis as to benefit themselves, and the small community of hiwiki, as agreed by several users in the bug report, has not had a chance to resolve their issues either locally or here on Meta. One of these routes is being blocked, and if reopening this RFC means being able to facilitate a consensus amongst them about removing the C: prefix from their namespace system, I'm willing to carry out what is necessary, in the best interests of the hiwiki community. English Wikipedia can't decide things for everyone else, sadly. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not arguing process here any more. I wrote that draft essay in response to repeated TCNSV demand that I explain RfC process and traditions. TCNSV was welcomed to comment, not invited, and his decline isn't relevant here, the same as most of what he's written. I have nothing to take to the Forum at this point. The above distracts from any legitimate purpose TCNSV may have. Nobody has supported his re-opening, so far, period. If this page is not watched, neither is the RfC he wants to re-open. So far, his two notices on hiwiki have received no response there.[3][4] He has not attempted to contact any individual hiwiki users on-wiki. There is no report of any request or support from an hiwiki user. A new RfC could be noted there. Merely looking at the hiwiki interface as he did does not establish a problem, the apparent lack of usage of the prefix in on-wiki links is strong evidence that there is no problem. Instead of modifying his notices on hiwiki to point to this talk page (easy), and creating more attention where it could matter, he instead filled this page with complaint that hiwiki was being suppressed by the RFC closure and me, and tried to reverse it (difficult).
TCNSV claims support for his view, stating, "several users are now popping up on bugzilla:4676 indicating they believe Hindi Wikipedia has unfairly had been given no time at all to react to this situation properly, and thus no say in the matter. The only person who stated that kind of thing was TCNSV. Rather, one user asked a question about how hiwiki users would know about the proposed change. There are answers to that question, several, and that nobody has commented there with them means nothing.
  • Most who are literate in Hindi are also literate in English. Hiwiki is not some small backwater wiki with little activity and a restricted user base. It's very active.
  • TCNSV placed two notices of the issue there, but they have received no response. Instead of clearly describing the possible issue, his notices were over-complex, but the fact remains that we have zero comment complaining about this proposed change from hiwiki users, in about three years.
  • User:Tinucherian, "Board Member (Executive Committee) & Head of Communications, PR & Media Relations of the Wikimedia India chapter" stated she had informed hiwiki users of the proposal.[5]. This was likely not on-wiki, or she used email or another account.
  • User:Mayur, the proposer for the original C: prefix usage on hiwiki, explicitly consented to the change.[6] That Mayur later retired is irrelevant; what is being shown is that this proposal was known to hiwiki users, and no objection appeared.
This is a dead horse. Stop beating it. If there is a problem, ways forward are clear. I will, however, place a notice on the RfC page referring to this discussion, in case some hiwiki user does follow the links TCNSV placed. --Abd (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC) edit conflict, additional material added after PiRSquared comment below --Abd (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I will not compromise any established consensus on hiwiki that may have said otherwise. This issue has been left unresolved since the developers have stalled implementation of the request located at bugzilla:4676, so it would make sense to reopen this RFC. I do not see in any way how this issue is considered "dead", when the requested change has not even been implemented yet. I've explained before possible uses of the C: prefix not apparent from a cursory query of hiwiki's database for [[C:Foo]] links, most exemplified by but not limited to use of the sidebar for easy navigation. We should not overturn a wiki's decision to have a namespace alias for the sake of our own convenience. You say your purpose here is to maximize consensus, yet I sense a lack of consensus stemming from me, a member of the community, here disagreeing with the result of the closure, and lack of response from the hiwiki community.
Lack of response from the hiwiki community does not necessarily mean that they consent to this change. It takes a wide leap in logic to assume that is the case. It could be hiwiki is slow to respond, because they might be responding to more urgent issues that might be more specific to their local community. It could be any number of reasons. That's no reason to disregard their opinions. Just because one or two people from hiwiki came to comment on this issue, again, does not mean the hiwiki community consented to the change. They're not representative of the entire community, and there was no link to the discussion nor notice that Mayur claimed he posted. You may be correct that hiwiki's community is not some backwater wiki with a lack of proper English-speaking users, but that has no bearing on the fact that hiwiki's input is necessary to move this issue forward.
So far, the only so-called 'difficulty' associated with reopening an RFC has been your objections to it. No one else is willing to block reopenings of RFCs as much as you have done. How difficult is it really with reopening an RFC, if you weren't there to object to it? Closing RFCs are disruptive, and quickly lead to archiving of the RFC when in fact the issue that is the subject of the RFC is still not resolved. What would have happened if I didn't comment in the bugzilla ticket, and didn't try to reopen the RFC? It'd hang in Bugzilla limbo for another decade, waiting for input from the hiwiki community about how best to resolve the interwiki-namespace-alias issue. My reopening has in fact spurred the discussion on bugzilla necessary to move this issue forward. There has been more benefits than harms from my attempted reopening of the RFC ticket. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
You are correct that I am watching this page, however I don't care whether you open a new RfC or reuse the old one. You might want to add a notice to Talk:Interwiki map too. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that page is irrelevant. That is not used for linking to WMF projects, but for other wikis. WMF projects are linked through the software, coded in or at least only accessible to developers, which is why Bugzilla is needed to change the behavior. See also Bugzilla:29940 which could readily be reopened to remove the possible conflict on hiwiki, given that Mayur consented to the change. --Abd (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Then I assume you want to add it here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to do anything that isn't already in process. However, that may be what developers would touch. More likely, this is like w: and v:, those must be in the "intermap," wherever that is (I'm not convinced that this is the same as the "interwiki map" mentioned above). Bugzilla:4676 addresses the addition, and should cover the removal of the special prefix on hiwiki (that is mentioned in the report title). Given how trivial this change should be, if there is no widespread usage, that 4676 has not been handled yet is a separate problem, best addressed by those familiar with getting developer attention. --Abd (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how c: ([7]) would be any different than d: ([8]). w: uses a language code as well, IIRC. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
If you say so. I'm not sure I understand "language code" as an issue. Language codes are dot prefixes, in the domain name, i.e., en.wikipedia.org. This is a link prefix, i.e., the w: in w:Wikipedia:IAR. The d: for wikidata is precisely the same thing. --Abd (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly. I already submitted a patch earlier for this, based on the d: one. On the German Wiktionary, w: goes to dewiki, but on the French Wikiquote it goes to frwiki. On Meta, it goes to enwiki. Hope that explains what I mean. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I see you've found the bug related to this concerning hiwiki's community. At least, you've done your homework. But you could just register an account on Bugzilla and comment directly on the ticket to communicate your response to the developers. It's quite easy, the only difference between registering on a wiki like Wikipedia and registering on a bugzilla system page is that the username is supplied by an email address instead. If you have specific objections to the comments made there, register and respond to it as appropriate.
@PiRSquared17: Does that recent change to MediaWiki's Git repository mean you have some sort of developer/shell access to submit proposed changes MediaWiki's code, to be reviewed by Wikimedia Foundation's shell admins? If so, I'm quite pleasantly surprised. I know not how to code such a thing myself, PHP, as opposed to C-sharp, is not a language I've been familiar with. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
@TeleComNasSprVen: I do have a Gerrit account. No +2 on anything important, and I haven't done much with it unfortunately except a few things like 112306. I do, however, have +2 for toollabs:irc-wmt, which is something Quentinv57, John Lewis, and I work on. However, I actually used Gerrit Patch Uploader for this patch (as I haven't set up the keys for gerrit yet, lazy), which anyone with a MW.org account can use. In addition, it is very easy to get an account on Gerrit and Labs. Just see quick guide (more detailed tutorial). Basically, to have mw:developer access (Gerrit and Labs), you just need to create an account on Wikitech (wikitech:Special:UserLogin/signup). Would you like me to submit a patch to remove c: alias from hiwiki? Obviously nobody will randomly +2 it if I put "Do not merge!" in the commit message, not that it happens often anyway. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am for removing the C prefix from hiwiki's database of namespace aliases, but I also wouldn't want any of the senior developers to claim 'there is no consensus' as I might have done for any sort of controversial changes, nor to revoke your access for doing so. I'm not sure how Git works exactly, but I suppose you could propose the change, and ask it to be held indefinitely until consensus is reached among both hiwiki and the devs for syncing it to MediaWiki core. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
And thanks for the links. I might consider opening an account myself if/when I get around to learning enough PHP to make as much changes as you've done. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This here is the sound of progress being made. The RFC closure was partially reverted by me, with the note at the bottom, which I hope any hiwiki users will be able to notice. On this specific RFC, given that the issue in Bugzilla was never resolved, I would say perhaps the closure was more harmful than helpful, even if the intended closure and the reverter held Meta Wiki as their best interests in mind. Closing may have been helpful in improving the outlook of Meta Wiki, but it was not conducive to generating the consensus of the global Wikimedia community at large necessary to move the Bugzilla ticket forward - consensus which the purpose of Meta Wiki ought to be serving. I was not a party to this discussion, so as an uninvolved user, I believed I was qualified to overturn this close. Extending my courtesy was of course notifying the original closer of my intentions. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoety has respondedEdit

[9], quoted:

Hi Abd. Yes, I was giving permission to revert if the reverting user felt it was justified (as in, I would not edit war over the edit). That said, I closed the RfC for a reason and I still stand by that closure. Personally, I have no stake in this decision. I'll go with whatever is decided. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoety still stands by the close. His comment shows no prejudice either way, this was, as I suspected, not an encouragement to re-open, it was merely a statement that he would not revert. He did not investigate TCNSV's claim, he simply stood aside, to let the rest of us decide, which generally proper. Procedurally, though, I'd have recommended he advise TSNSV differently, because reopening an RfC closed for two years is not a great idea, for reasons I'm not going to detail here. Rather, opening up discussion on the Talk page is fine -- like this -- or starting up a new RfC if necessary.

I also have no stake in this decision. I reverted TCNSV again because of the sheer unilateral outrageousness of his edit reason, citing Billinghurst's comment which was about a totally different context, as if it prohibited keeping a closed discussion closed. If TCNSV re-opens, I will not revert, I will call attention to the issue in a more watched space and leave it for others to decide. --Abd (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The entirety of the reasons for the statement above is utterly wrong, as demonstrated here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A new RfC is requiredEdit

This proposal from 2 years ago was supported by only 23 people, which is not evidence of a current consensus of the global Wikimedia community. Was it even advertised beyond Meta and the English (and Hindi?) Wikipedia? Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 23:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For other users who aren't following the bug: w:Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_16#C:ATT PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
For the particular discussion linked to above, I tried my best not to avoid any appearance of canvassing as much as possible, while still attempting to provide a way for the English Wikipedia to better express its views here. I've worded the opening statements to each deletion discussion as neutrally as possible, simply stating that deletion of the redirects is directly tied to the effects of the RFC here, without myself supporting one way or the other whether the configuration change to the C prefix ought to be implemented or not. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict with above) 23/23, with global participation, is strong evidence of global consensus. If it had been, say, 23/30, I'd not be so sure. The discussion raised on Redirs for discussion shows a minor issue, as far as anything I've seen. (C:CSD on Wikipedia may be the worst case, and it's still minor compared to the value of the shortcut for Commons. That one could be fixed by one user in a couple of hours, it's under 250 quick replace operations.) The convenience to users of C: for commons would be massive, and that's what current discussion continues to show. Thryduulf, your opinion is isolated. Only one other person in the discussions so far has supported your position, and that's TCNSV, who revert-warred to re-open this RfC, and quickly took it to enwiki as an open matter before that could be reviewed. We will see where that goes.
PiRSquared has generated a list of C: pages on all the wikis: [10]. The most difficult examples found are pages where C: is actually part of the page title, as w:C: The Contra Adventure. However, the image used has C - The Contra Adventure, and the actual title has no punctuation at all: C The Contra Adventure, or it could be rendered better as C (The Contra Adventure). That one can be handled. --Abd (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
(additional comment) It was not necessary to re-open this RfC in order to discuss remaining issues, or even to attempt to reverse the decision. On Wikipedia, one does not re-open an AfD in order to reconsider the matter. (I saw an MfD re-opened once, bad precedent. But that was immediate, coming out of a Deletion Review, users dissatisfied with a Keep Close and objecting to the non-admin status of the closer, which was irrelevant. Ultimate close was the same.) RfCs there are not re-opened to re-consider the matter. A reconsideration is rarely the exact same issue. A new RfC will be more focused.
If one wants broad comment from Wikipedia, RfD is a strange place to put it. A tiny minority of users will see it there. --Abd (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
"Only one other person in the discussions so far has supported your position, and that's TCNSV..." False, I've never said anywhere that I supported his position. The only thing I have supported is his right to any position in this RFC. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
So, you reopened this RfC without knowing that anyone opposed the result, and you did not oppose it yourself? You did oppose the result, you have said so.[11]. That is the "position" you supported. We have no "right" to express a position in a closed RfC. We retain the right to express our positions on issues, in a non-disruptive manner, and we have many ways we can do this, even to overturn the result of an RfC. Re-opening is traditionally open, sometimes, for a short time after closure. Not for long. --Abd (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Despite your misrepresentation of my position (and ironic hypocritical accusation of the same) I have never taken Thryduulf's position, and in fact I have always been for turning the C prefix to point to Commons. Again, I disagreed with the result and how it was approached; the stalling of the bugzilla ticket for 3+ years on the matter even showed the developers' reluctance to go through with the change, and has allowed here a chance for reexamination of the facts. Interlinking to Commons through the C prefix might be what I support, but I consider gaining an actual consensus and not just a group of 23 editors agreeing with each other more important than seeing this proposal pass. Like how you described the conflict over the AAR page, I disagreed with the process, not in fact with the proposed changes. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not I am in a minority is not relevant to whether the majority opinion represents a consensus or not. As I noted on the bugzilla ticket, the developers have in the past required evidence of significantly greater support for simple changes affecting a single project, so at the minimum a change affecting all projects needs to be held to the same standards. This RfC needs to be prominently advertised on all projects, and until it has been it cannot claim to legitimately represent a consensus of the global community. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 01:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Thryduulf. It is clear that for most purposes a 23:0 discussion, open for a year, with broad participation within those numbers (i.e., it wasn't just enwiki users, for example), was a consensus, it would be preposterous to assume otherwise. However, what the developers require might be different. Personally, I'm a tad offended that they would take a result like that and simply discount it without discussion. But I don't deal with the developers, usually. You may be right about all projects.
So, anyway, it was consensus, really, stronger consensus than we often see. However, that does not mean that there can be no contrary opinion, and consensus can change.
There is a procedural problem. This RfC was started in 2011, and closed in 2012. It contains a 100% consensus for a certain position. If this is the RfC that is widely broadcast, with this being re-opened, don't you think that would prejudice the discussion? New wine in old bottles, not a good idea.
First of all, if the proposal and how to implement it is clear, then a new RfC can be started, one with a clearer name. This name sucked, it's not understandable without a program. Hint: it is not about Wikimedia Commons! It's about an interwiki link. Maybe Requests for comment/Interwiki link to Commons, c:?, or something like that. Hah! I almost put c: at the beginning and then what would we have had?
The old RfC will link to this one, and summarize it simply. It will report all the known issues, the work needed on pseudo-namespace links, etc. It will start clean. And, yes, it will go in broadcast messages. It will be a very simple RfC, if the prep work has been well done. There should really be general consensus before it's started. If so, it's going to be snowing "Yes." Unless someone comes up with a really good reason not to do that. In which case, let's hope it is provided before that RfC starts, because massive RfCs are a terrible place to decide to change direction or to even think much about anything.
That's the way to do it, not to open a discussion closed for two years, claiming that the hiwiki users were being suppressed, revert warring, Abd is arrogant, blah, blah. --Abd (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
"It is clear that for most purposes a 23:0 discussion...was a consensus, it would be preposterous to assume otherwise." False, what part of "it cannot claim to legitimately represent a consensus of the global community" do you not understand?
"So, anyway, it was consensus, really, stronger consensus than we often see." False, promotions to adminship on the English Wikipedia typically require thirty or even fifty or more supporters before the proposal passes. That was merely for one Wikimedia site; a configuration change at the developer level which has the potential to disrupt millions of users across the Wikimedia projects has to have wider participation than a mere handful of 23 editors. Wikipedia:Consensus: Consensus...does not mean unanimity
To take a more extreme example, let's say there was an RFC discussion opened up on Meta Wiki proposing to close the Wikiversity project. Let's say it was advertised on a few wikis, like English Wikipedia and some smaller Wikiversities like Korean Wikiversity. But it never sought the opinions of some of the bigger Wikiversities, like English Wikiversity or German Wikiversity. Would the English Wikiversity or German Wikiversity have cause to overturn such a decision, supported unanimously by ten editors primarily from English Wikipedia and closed three years ago? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion of this talk page into the RfC pageEdit

TCNSV has now transcluded this entire talk page into the RfC. Thus a 23 KB RfC is now an additional 42 KB to download and display, which can make a big difference on a mobile device. I comment on Talk pages at length, generally, compared to what I write for content pages and RfCs. Talk pages are attached to the RfC pages, specifically as a place for metacomment and side-issues. Irrelevant comment is often moved there. This is the reverse, moving all Talk page comment to the RfC itself. There is no purpose to the transclusion but disruption. I reverted it, TCNSV reverted without discussion, calling his transclusion a "comment," though it wasn't signed. I then changed the transclusion to a note and a link to the Talk page, not that this was really needed -- we know that there is comment on a Talk page, and there were already references to this talk page in the RfC -- but as a compromise. TCNSV again added the transclusion.

He has not accepted compromises. He has continually insisted on his way, and revert wars to get it, he doesn't seek consensus. What is he doing here? --Abd (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • TeleComNasSprVen: We don't need a talk page transcluded on the RFC. If you're going to vote in an RFC, you probably know what a talk page is for and that you might be interested in reading that in addition to the RFC page. Please do not add it again. Killiondude (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Killiondude: Alright then, you're free to remove it. I preferred someone else more uninvolved than Abd review it anyway. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This did not just start here. TCNSV has, before, and frequently, reverted my actions because they were my actions, not because they were against consensus. For him, it's all personal. That you made essentially the same arguments as I, Killiondude, he doesn't notice. For him, it's about the persons involved. Especially him. So to work with him requires more people be involved. I've closed a lot of discussions, over the years. Reversion of my closes by other than TCNSV has been rare. I can't think of one, actually. --Abd (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Closure of RfC and removal of commentsEdit

Hello. There seems to be a dispute over the removal of two comments placed after the (proposed?) end date. Permanent history link. I'm inviting Scott and Vogone to discuss this here instead of starting a revert war. Regards, PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The closure date was agreed upon by participants in this discussion weeks ago. Vogone apparently thinks that he or she is able to waltz in after the end and unilaterally overturn that group decision. That's extremely rude. "Because it was still listed as open at Meta:RFC" is not a valid reason. That just means that I forgot to update Meta:RFC yesterday. The big clue should have been the boxes all over the RfC which said "This has now reached its end date, please don't add any more comments". Apparently that wasn't subtle enough, so now I've had to put the whole thing in a "discussion closed" box, which was something that I wanted to leave to the assessing admin to do. — Scott talk 18:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I already commented on the boxes (which stated themselves that the RFC wasn't "formally" closed) and I also agreed with PiRSquared17's compromise (in case you insist on that they cause that much damage that they mustn't be listed together with the other comments made in time) which listed the comments in a separated section (thanks for that) which you rudely reverted. This is a wiki and I won't accept that any user censors my (or any other user's) comments just because of a "deadline" set by a random user. @PiRSquared17: Funny how you bring things up after they ended, I already resigned the revert war :-P Vogone talk 18:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Outside opinion: I do not see the harm in letting people add their thoughts even though discussion part of the RfC is closed (though I'm not sure how it is closed if an admin/steward hasn't closed it yet). Pir2's solution of a separate section seems to me a very good one, and there is no reason to discount any valid opinions that are expressed, especially when it hasn't been actually closed yet. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's common for non-admins to close; what is key is that the close represents consensus. Unless a deadline was established by consensus, deadlines are dicta, and can and should be disregarded. Discussions that require admin action, and closure for the action, should be closed by an admin, because the action taken is the actual close. The purpose here was only to document a global consensus, so anyone should be able to close. If the closure is wrong, it can be reverted, but users who revert a closure representing an expressed consensus, or that considers the welfare of the community, could be in hot water. --Abd (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have preferred closure from someone who did not participate in the discussion, or at least did not support or oppose, possibly an admin/steward. I'm not sure it is appropriate for the proposer to close his own RfC as successful (diff), but I think that there is consensus for this change (unlike this user). PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I am open to others reverting my closure and instating their reasoning about closure, but given the complexity of the discussion and a lack of uninvolved able administrators willing to come forth and spend the time to construct a rationale, I felt it necessary to prevent further degradation of the page as is happening here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Arguably speaking, Vogone and/or Ajraddatz could have done it themself after the closure, if it weren't for the little dispute propping up here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone is wrong on the internet. The original RfC indicated a clear global consensus, and TeleCom, in his close, claimed it didn't (which was part of his original claim in re-opening this). All that happened here was that four times as many users commented and the support reduced from 100% to 84%, which could roughly be expected from how these things go. TeleCom should not have closed, but so what? The result is clear, and that is what is important.
  • Vogone was technically correct, unless we consider Scott's action as a close. But Scott didn't declare a close! He just attempted to shut down comment, based on that earlier "deadline," and revert warred over it. Normally it ain't over till it's over. Mess. TeleCom, rightly or wrongly, actually did close, reflecting present consensus, never mind what he wrote about the past. I highly recommend everyone go home. It's over. Unless the developers decide They Don't Like It, which seems unlikely, we will have c: for commons: It's about time, given that earlier RfC. --Abd (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • @Abd: Could you please refrain from responding to me, especially in a contentious RFC you have sought to fight with me over? You have done that before, on the steward requests for locking page when I cited a long-term abuse case, on the spam blacklist page, and now commenting on my closure. Please comment only if you have something more constructive to say after closure than mere meta-discussion, or reflection or criticism of others' actions. We are not Wikiversity, and it has been necessary to demonstrate to developers what "global consensus" is. If you object to my closure, do revert and tell me how that goes. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • 23 contributors in 2011 wasn't a clear global consensus, even the Wikipedia MOS-maniacs could beat that in their next episode about hands and inches for ponies smaller than 151cm. Quite interesting topic actually, if it only wouldn't claim to be a guideline. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments after closeEdit

moved from RfC closed by TeleComNasSprVen, see also [12]

  1.   Oppose C:. It is not self-explanatory enough. I suggest cmns: as much clearer. I don't particularly like com: or comm: which suggest "communications" to me rather than "commons".--Srleffler (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Return to "Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons interwiki prefix" page.