Forum:CT:Consensus section

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Consensus section

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to add a new section(s) to Wookieepedia Administrators to explain the administrative responsibilities with regards to the Consensus Track. Greyman(Talk) 05:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not waste time reading this caption. Let's move this thing along.

Do not waste time reading this caption. Let's move this thing along.

A quick glance at both Wookieepedia:Consensus and Wookieepedia:Administrators reveals that a bit of information is missing. Both policy pages discuss the Trash Compactor, but neither mentions anything about the Consensus Track or the administrative details entailed in managing the Consensus Track.

For those who aren't aware, it is the responsibility of admins to close and implement CT (Consensus Track) decisions, and they are encouraged to participate. (Okay, I might have made that last part up.)

I mean to correct our lapse in policy with an addition to Wookieepedia:Administrators. A new section under heading 2 will be created, creatively titled "Consensus Track". It'll look something like this:

Consensus Track

With regards to the process of consensus track forums which are discussed and debated among the entire community, it is the responsibility of administrators both to provide input on consensus track threads, as well as closing the threads when they are finished.

1.1 Two weeks is provided as a general guideline for thread length, though a thread should only be closed if it is clear that a consensus has been reached, or if no consensus has been reached and the thread has not been edited in some time, indicating that a community agreement is not forthcoming. Should a thread be closed, it is the responsibility of the administration to properly address the result of the thread and apply it to the site and its policies as need be.

1.2 Additionally, it is regarded as generally bad form to close a consensus track thread in which an individual administrator has been heavily involved, though all consensus track closings fall under administrative discretion.

This would also entail the creation of a "Watch Consensus Track and close threads as needed" list for administrators to sign up for on WP:A, under heading 2.7 "Responsibilities". I don't think I need to post the syntax here- it's similar to the others listed.

Votes and talking and such go here

  • Lines 1.1 and 1.2 will be voted on separately as they should not derail the policy. They will not be marked as such in the actual policy if approved- the designations are for voting purposes

Support general policy, minus 1.1 and 1.2

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Graestan(Talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 13:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Din's Fire 997 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Unit 8311 18:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Riffsyphon1024 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 05:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 02:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Support inclusion of 1.1

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Graestan(Talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 13:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Din's Fire 997 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. OK. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Unit 8311 18:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Riffsyphon1024 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. With dormancy being defined below, I support this. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Per Fiolli. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 02:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of 1.1

Not unless "some time" is defined more clearly. I know that sounds stupid, but if a very active and contested forum goes dormant for two or three days an admin can close it to regulate the outcome. I don't want to see that happen. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 05:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Fiolli. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 10:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Support inclusion of 1.2

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Graestan(Talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Din's Fire 997 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. With definition of "heavily involved". Riffsyphon1024 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. With the "who started" clause added, I like it. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 02:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of 1.2

  1. It fails to define "heavily involved", and goes on to say that closing a thread early is "bad form" but nothing will be done about it. I get your general idea, but this wording doesn't work. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I see where you are coming from, but I wasn't sure about a more strictly worded proposal. That's why it's a separate line that we can revisit separately if need be. I guess my point was that it would be a bad idea for, say, me to close this thread, because I started it. I'm also not sure if that's worth WP:RFRA, because it doesn't really fit any of the definitions there. Thoughts are welcome. (Preferably in the comments section, heh). Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the premise very much, but I do not think that an admin who started the CT should be the ones to close it. Often, they are the ones most heavily involved. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 05:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's the point-perhaps what exactly "bad form" means should be more heavily defined-but the proposal is meant to limit admins from closing threads in which they were heavily involved. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I consider it to be a good thing if an admin who’s not "heavily involved" closes a consensus track thread and an admin closing a consensus track thread should never be regarded as "bad form." --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 10:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What?? "I consider it to be a good thing if an admin who's not 'heavily involved' closes a consensus track thread"- that's exactly what the proposed policy suggests. And if I was to close this consensus track thread, that's what I could consider bad form. Come on people, don't just shoot the policy down. Discuss and revise it. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not "just shooting it down," it sounded like you meant the opposite of what you actually meant... it seems I got confused, and I usually don’t get confused very easily... perhaps this needs to be simplified to avoid others making the same mistake I made. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ataru, I'm also not trying to shoot it down either. I've stated my reasons for objecting and would like to discuss this if I'm misinterpreting the point. I think I might be confused as well. If I am not misinterpreting it, my objection stands. See comments below. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments go here

  • A possible definition of "heavily involved" could include, but not be limited to the following: a): being the CT starter (unless no one else has voted and it is deleted per "accidental" or "ill-considered CT" reasons), b): having at least two votes or c): at least two separate comments. "Bad form" should either be backed up with something substantial, or removed entirely. These should be taken as a just a suggestion, however.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. Are we talking (regarding 1.1) about two weeks from the start date or two weeks from the last good-faith edit? Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 04:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Two weeks from the start date is generally a good minimum time to see if there is consensus or not. If there is overwhelming consensus in a week, then it should be closed. If it's been two weeks and the thread is still being discussed and edited, then it should not be closed. If it's been two weeks and no consensus has been reached and the thread is inactive, then it should be closed. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • As much as I want to help expedite the process (and believe me, I do), I'm not sure only one week is proper even if there is overwhelming consensus. If it becomes two weeks as a hypothetical date of permissibility, then it should be a minimum of two weeks as well. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 05:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fiolli's concerns from above. The "pasta bowl" of the Forum, if you will:

  • 1.1: I do think that a timeframe does need to be at the very least alluded to rather than simply "short order." A dormancy level, perhaps, of 5 (at most 7) days before an article is closed. Look, I would love to move these things through as much as possible, but I think people need to be given an ample opportunity to discuss or think about comments, voting, etc. Also, the dormancy rules should be guided by a good-faith effort, not some random attempt by an individual just to keep the discussion open by rehashing or altering some formatting code. Therefore, if there has been no "good faith" activity in 5 days, I say close it. Less than that and I'm skeptical; less than 3 and I can not support the amendment. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1.2: I believe that I too was confused of the language regarding the amendment. Can I propose the following to see if this clears it up while remaining in line? "Additionally, it is regarded as generally bad form for an individual administrator to close a consensus track thread in which he or she has been heavily involved, though all consensus track closings fall under administrative discretion." If this is what you are intending, this was not entirely what I interpreted from above. Additionally, I would like to state the following: My opinion that an administrator who starts a CT thread should not be the individual to close it. Perhaps this is regarded as a separate issue, but, as with this thread, the starting administrator is heavily involved so there is a common overlap. That being said, I have no objection to the "bad form" language of 1.2 or even with the lack of a "what will happen" clause. I just don't think the amendment goes far enough to prevent the starting admin from stopping a thread. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Other concerns: I also think, as stated in the comment section above, that an overwhelming consensus after even one week is not sufficient. If we are giving a guideline of two weeks before a thread can be closed than two weeks it should be. Therefore two weeks should be regarded as a minimum time open to discussion and vote, but not obligated to stay beyond two weeks. I'd love to move things through in a week, but the standard should be uniform. If an amendment wants to be discussed about unanimous consensus and one week, then that is a different amendment. I'd entertain that type of an amendment. Otherwise, the two weeks for 1.1 should be uniform. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ataru sez: I find myself agreeing with a lot of your points, Fiolli. A lot of the language of 1.1 probably isn't set in stone enough, but I did that only for the purpose of moving along CTs which really are sort of obvious. (Dare I use the bullets in BTS as an example?) However, I think you're right in that two weeks is a good, definitive, minimum guideline, and that we should set that in stone. Perhaps a separate vote on changing that policy to a strict minimum of two weeks is needed; I certainly would support that.
  • With regards to your concerns about 1.2, the language should certainly be cleaned up, and I apologize if I wasn't clear. Here's what the policy was meant to do, in a listy nutshell.
Don't close a thread which you started (for admins)
Don't close a thread in which you are one of the main posters. (This doesn't include votes, but if you made a bunch (I don't want to define this too much, but if the community feels it's necessary, have at it) of comments one way or another, it's bad form to close a thread, just as a precaution against bias.)
Consensus Track decisions fall under admin autonomy.
  • That's what it's supposed to say, and I'd be more than happy to revise and consider a new version of 1.2 that is clearer and easier to understand. Thanks for your opinion on the matter. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 23:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ataru, thank you for clarifying this. With regards to 1.2, I only opposed on the notion that I assumed the starting admin was still allowed to close it. With that being eliminated as an option, I'm happy to support 1.2. I still am skeptical of 1.1 on the merit of dormant time. I think the two weeks issue can be considered separate from this at another time or on another CT thread. My concern lies on the fact that any admin (other than the highly involved or starting admins) can close the CT if it has gone dormant for two days citing "dormancy" in order to engineer a vote. Wookieepedia goes in cycles, less during the weeks and more on weekends. I think "some time" should be a little clearer defined to ensure that 2 or 3 days of dormancy doesn't permit a CT to be closed. I'm not suggesting anything longer than a week, but I believe that 5 days would be more than sufficient. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more stuff

  • It's been brought up that we might need a bit more definition on what the conditions for closing a CT are. So here are some more options, that would be added to 1.1 mostly.

Add more options as necessary

Minimum CT length

Defines the minimum amount of time elapsed before a CT is eligible to closed. Does not apply to CSD.

1 week

  1. If it's been unanimous after a week, and doesn't require sweeping complicated site-wide changes, why postpone the decision? —Silly Dan (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Minimum. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

2 weeks

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Graestan(Talk) 03:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. JMAS 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Imperialles 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Din's Fire 997 04:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Unit 8311 21:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No limit

Definition of dormancy

When consensus has not been reached, threads should not be left open forever. The question is, how long must it be before a no-consensus thread is open to being closed, due to dormancy? And don't close a thread with lots of edits that day. Seriously. If you can't tell what consensus is and what isn't, I suggest you talk to your fellow administrators.

Also, for threads closed by section (some of the MOS ones), each section would have to be dormant for however long, not necessarily the entire forum. If that makes sense.

It's been at least two weeks, no edits in two weeks

It's been at least two weeks, no edits in one week

  1. I'd rather have that extra two days, just in case.Din's Fire 997 04:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been at least two weeks, no edits in five days

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Graestan(Talk) 03:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. JMAS 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. This, or one week. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Five days... one week... isn't this really the same? -- Riffsyphon1024 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Imperialles 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per Xwing. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Unit 8311 21:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been at least two weeks, no edits in three days

Who needs limits?