Author: burthsceh
Description:
In Japanese Wikipedia, 10 people approved a plan
that users are autopromoted to autoconfirmed
when users have been created 4 days and over before (default),
and have edited 10 times and over.
Please add "'jawiki' => 10," to "'wgAutoConfirmCount' => array(),"
in InitialiseSettings.php.
Thanks.
Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement
URL: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VP/AutoConfirmCount10
Is someone able to verify consensus? I have no idea what the link says and google translate seems to choke part way through the page and has just stopped translating almost anything else. (passing through mostly japanese chars to the "translation" output)
I can't read Japanese, but even just looking at the icons I can say that there wasn't an overwhelming consensus (at least 3 unconvinced users, besides only 10 in favour); in fact that's not the wiki's main discussion page (as far as I can see) and the topic seems to have been buried in several other proposals.
Pasting the section text in Google translate seems to show that several users raised objections about the validity of the discussion and that the proposal wasn't carefully explained.
This is a very drastic change which only three wikis have (very controversially) performed: en.wiki, ar.wiki, es.wiki (see [[m:Newly registered user]]); all of them are very different from ja.wiki and can't be just blindly copied as the original proposal in the discussion would seem to imply.
I suggest to open a discussion in the most visible discussion venue of the wiki (as proposed by several local users) and to take the opportunity to explain the change better, so that consensus is confirmed; until then, this should probably be tagged shellpolicy.
burthsceh wrote:
I explain the discussion.
Blocked users such as LTA:HAT and LTA:ISECHIKA avoid blocking in Japanese Wikipedia. Section 継続的なブロック破りユーザへの対処について in [[w:ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:荒らし]] is in order to deal with the problem. Autoconfirmed pseudo-group is given autoconfirmed right. First of all, there is the proposal for raising the condition for editing semi-protected pages, that is to say to raise the condition for autopromoting to autoconfirmed at section 第6案（半保護基準の変更）の先行導入提案.
10 people supported the proposal, and no one opposed the proposal. Some proposed moving the discussion to another page, and vote in order to request this bug in bugzilla. But the discussion has been for 2 weeks or over, some parson notified of the discussion in [[w:ja:Wikipedia:お知らせ]] (en: Wikipedia:News), and some parson notified of a discussion of 継続的なブロック破りユーザへの対処について in [[w:ja:Wikipedia:コミュニティ・ポータル]] (en: Wikipedia:Community_portal) and [[w:ja:Wikipedia:コメント依頼]] (en: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment).
Please merge and apply the change.
Thanks.
I just said on gerrit:
Please keep all of the discussion about whether or not this is ready for
merge in one place. (bugzilla) Do not comment further here until there's been
some consensus conclusion on bugzilla about whether the local jawiki
discussion was sufficient.
Hello
We, jawp people, are going to have a vote for this bug on jawp Village pump
to re-confirm the consensus of the community.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VP/AutoConfirmCount10
Thanks.
Thank you miya for the more formal request ; it's appropriated for this delicate matter.
[ Updating URL. ]
tanuki47 wrote:
In the ja.wikipedia community, some due process defects of the consensus process have pointed out. Therefore, I recommend to be careful.
Thanks to all.
[ Decision process' raw datas ]
A decision process have took part on ja.wikipedia, with 231 participants.
Ja.wikipedia does seem to have peculiar criteria to participate to decision-making process to ensure voters are active contributors. Among these criteria, it seems one of them is "at least 5 edits in (main) during the month before the process".
This leads to the following breakdown of the votes:
Valid votes: 163 (70,6%)
Invalid votes: 68 (29,4%)
Total: 231
The results (pro, against, neutral) are:
Valid votes: 158, 5, 0 (96,9% approval)
Invalid votes: 59, 8, 1 (86,8% approval)
Total: 217, 13, 1 (93,9% approval)
Tanuki and Burthsceh, could you tell us if a formal closure took place and if so, what are the result?
Tanuki, we note your concern and will of course wait your current discussion outcome.
tanuki47 wrote:
It seems to be one of the major problem that this vote has done in "Idobata". In Japanese language, "Idobata" means unofficial place. Therefor, the vote have to be done in official place if the vote have official effect.
Thanks to all.
It is apparent that a formal closure took place and
the result of this vote has been declared as "support".
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VP/AutoConfirmCount10#.E6.8A.95.E7.A5.A8.E7.B5.90.E6.9E.9C.E3.81.AE.E7.A2.BA.E5.AE.9A
An anonymous user (ISP - Biglobe/Hyogo) asserted "due processに瑕疵"
(this may mean "some due process defects of the consensus process"),
but no one has seconded his/her opinion.
It seems to me that just an anonymous user's objection without any other's support
cannot turn down the result of a formal voting
which took place in "Idobata" (equivalent to Village pump of enwp).
thanks.
tanuki47 wrote:
Thanks to miya.
Would you agree that "Idobata" means unofficial place?
And; although the vote is "formal" you said; more than 40 sysop have abstained from voting; and only less than 20 sysop have supported.
I hope fair-minded decision.
Thanks to all.
In order to ensure that this process does not end up as a simple straw poll, the organizers set up the process to be as formal as a Request for Adminship [1] vote would be, namely:
In my opinion, all of this process would make the proposal as "official" as it could be.
Tanuki47 seems to be concerned about the fact that the voting took place in Idobata, but "井戸端 (Idobata)" literally means "beside the well" [5] which is almost a direct translation of "village pump", and one can clearly see that the corresponding page [6] is jawiki's equivalent of Village Pump in enwiki. Although I understand that the page title *sounds* unofficial, it is no more and no less as official as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPR would be. The Idobata is intended as a place for proposals and discussions in the first place, as is clearly stated on top of the page [6].
On a further note, I would like to add in response to Tanuki47 that abstention from voting is not an opposition.
[1] http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfA
[2] To ensure that a voter is an active participant in the project, a voter should have made their first edit at least a month before the proposal started; AND should have edited the article namespace for at least 50 times overall and 5 times within a month before the proposal.
[3] Where all the major site-wide announcements are made. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NEWS
[4] Taisyo's edits on http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&action=history
[5] Compound of http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8 and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%AB%AF
[6] http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VP
Thanks for the explanation. Just to check, were all the characteristic of the [[m:Newly registered user]] status translated to Japanese/explained on the page so that users could understand the implications?
You can find the relevant explanation in the big rounded box in the following section:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VP/AutoConfirmCount10#.E5.85.B7.E4.BD.93.E7.9A.84.E3.81.AA.E5.86.85.E5.AE.B9
Here, the background and motivation of the proposal (背景), the proposed change itself (提案内容), and both the advantage (メリット) and the disadvantage (デメリット) induced by the proposal is given.
The explanation links to a page [1] explaining the limitations of a newly registered user (新規利用者) and what an autoconfirmed user (自動承認された利用) would be able to do.
If you need to check, look for the string "自動承認条件" (condition for autoconfirm) beneath "提案内容" (proposed change).
Oh yeah, and the proposal also links to the Japanese equivalent of [[en:Special:ListGroupRights#autoconfirmed]], which is [[ja:特別:利用者グループ権限#autoconfirmed]], in order to show the full list of rights associated with the autoconfirmed group.
tanuki47 wrote:
Compared to that a Request for Adminship vote have "official" page like http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfA ; they have no "official" page about this vote which will make an impact on whole ja.wikipedia community; it will have more impact than ONE Administrator election vote. There is only "Idobata" meeting. And there is 60 Administrators.
And we must recognize that almost every Japanese people associate "Idobata" with "Idobata kaigi". "Idobata kaigi" mean meeting at "Idobata". And it have special meaning in Japanese language like the explanation of the link below.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF&redirect=no
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF%E4%BC%9A%E8%AD%B0
On a further note, they have been advised to get only 31 Administrator's Supports to cure the defects; NOT 4000. And it will be very easy for them.
Thanks to all.
To all:
There is ongoing discussion on [[ja:WP:VP/AutoConfirmCount10]] because an objection was raised on 10/15 (after closure of vote and formal objection period) from 218.42.27.236. The user proposes that there should be another voting process only among admins, which would pass with a over-majority support of all registered administrators (60 admins in jawiki; therefore 31 admins), and unless that is met, this proposal should be taken down.
In my personal view, not only does this goes against what adminship is all about, but also is really ex post facto, but I'll let you know if the discussion at jawiki reaches anywhere.
To Tanuki:
Of course there is no permanent page for this proposal. This is a one-time issue, unlike RfA which happens every once in a while.
The number of admins who participated in the poll is not relevant. Only a community consensus is required. [[ja:WP:NOBIGDEAL]] explicitly states that an administrator's opinion does not take precedence over that of a normal user.
The name of the page "Idobata" has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the process, as I have stated above. The expression "idobata kaigi" (chatting beside the well) does not make it any different.
Maybe we should take this discussion back to [[ja:WP:VP/AutoConfirmCount10]?
tanuki47 wrote:
They are beginning to get 31 Administrator's Supports to cure the defects.
So please wait a moment.
Thanks to all.
They're not.
Nobody so far has recognized what you call a "defect" in the process, and nobody so far has expressed any need for any admin-limited poll.
law.soma wrote:
Since a sysop is not a big deal, nobody accepts any necessities of the sysop-limited vote.
Moreover, the name of "Wikipedia:Idobata" (en:Wikipedia:Village pump) does not have the relation to the effectiveness of the process.
Now, only Tanuki is in the state where everybody's persuasion is not accepted.
A statement at the bottom of [[ja:WP:VP/AutoConfirmCount10]] by Taisyo, translated by me (朝彦), is quoted below:
An unregistered user connecting via Biglobe from Hyogo has insisted that "4000 supporting votes from active users", or as an alternative, "31 supporting votes from admins" should be a requirement; and that "Idobata (Village pump) is an 'unofficial place' and the voting is invalid". Both of these opinions have not gained any support and are isolated from other users. Moreover, the unregistered user insists that he/she has raised a formal objection within the designated objection period, but it is a shared opinion among all the other users that none of the unregistered user's edits on this page made during the objection period qualify as an effective objection. The 231 votes (including invalid ballots) that have been cast above shall not be nullified, and in reflection to the outcome, I would like to ask the people at bugzilla that the autoconfirm condition on this wiki be set to "4 days since registration and 10 edits" (the same as enwiki). --Taisyo (talk) 2012-10-20 00:20 (UTC). Edited 2012-10-20 02:12, 04:42, 04:43
Users participating in the discussion on the Talk page unanimously supports the statement, including two other admins Triglav and aokomoriuta.
I think we can safely say that consensus has been reached on jawiki, so please go on with the change. Thank you.
I agree from an external point of view, there is a *great* consensus on ja.wiki on this matter.
[ shellpolicy -> shell ]
Freetrashbox wrote:
I think that the consensus has been confirmed. I think that the change of the setting is appropriate measures.
wikipedianjp2007 wrote:
There is a huge problem of this vote as long as I observe.
I am a Ja Wikipedian since 2007, and have seen this sort of unfair trials(mostly very short-sighted trial) to install new rule on purpose of excluding new commers. Some wikimedia administrators may have heard this problematic environment issue of JaWP. Hereby, I have to say, please watch out.
There is very limited discussion prior to this 'simple straw poll', and many users who noticed this poll all of sudden technically commented their strong concern and oppose(that those guys from jaWP above never pointed out), however, their opinion is ignored and no further debate since this is a poll. There is no open a discussion so far on this vote, and there is only 'simple straw poll' without discussion.
As Nemo_bis has mentioned above, this is a very drastic change which only three wikis have (very controversially) performed. In JaWP, yes of course this is substantially controversial. However, what you guys see here is merely a straw poll result which appears overwhelming. Actually, it is not overwhelming.
There is no concensus in any WIKI way.
I've a lot of difficulties to understand how a controversial change could get 93,9% support from 217 people. I understand your consensus argument, but when 217 people ignore yours arguments, there is a major issue. The definition of the consensus itself isn't consensual: some wikis would like to stress the fact a consensus isn't an unanimity, but a very wide agreement on a matter after a discussion.
You could raise these concerns on ja.wiki and ask a formal process with several phases for future decisions (e.g. fr.wikipedia uses a process with three phases (1) discussion, generally during some weeks to analyse all the issues of a given problematic and determine vote modalities (2) the vote itself (3) result and application).
wikipedianjp2007 wrote:
Well, you mention 'your arguments', but the truth is I have not participated in the poll or discussion in this matter, and I simply state the fact I observe.
Again, as Nemo_bis (Not me) has mentioned above, this is a very drastic change which only three wikis have (very controversially) performed, and for some reason, 93.9% support from 217 people on the substantial controversial installation of the new rule. Don't you think it is very strange?
The reason for that is this proposal for the vote is not fairly presented as claimed above
-> the background and motivation of the proposal (背景), the proposed change
itself (提案内容), and both the advantage (メリット) and the disadvantage (デメリット)
induced by the proposal is given.
AFTER the poll had begun, many people claims the advantage is very small, and disadvantage is big, however not end up with to vote for oppose.
If this advantage/disadvantage estimation were there BEFORE the poll the proposal, 93.9% support never happen I believe, and such an estimation(or should I say Discussion) is supposed to be there before the poll.
In fact, this proposal was approved only 10 people before some people here shown their concern that the consensus cannot be confirmed.
Yes, only 10 people. Most jaWP people did not notice this new rule installation trial, and of course, they had not discuss this matter until the recent poll. Now after or during the poll, strong concerns of the disadvantage of this new rule are claimed, and those opinion were ignored, never discussed.
Is this a consensus? I cannot confirm that.
Nemo_bis mainly mentioned the fact a large consultation were needed, and not an informal section like this one:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%E2%80%90%E3%83%8E%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88:%E8%8D%92%E3%82%89%E3%81%97#.E7.AC.AC6.E6.A1.88.EF.BC.88.E5.8D.8A.E4.BF.9D.E8.AD.B7.E5.9F.BA.E6.BA.96.E3.81.AE.E5.A4.89.E6.9B.B4.EF.BC.89.E3.81.AE.E5.85.88.E8.A1.8C.E5.B0.8E.E5.85.A5.E6.8F.90.E6.A1.88
He didn't refer to the decision vouched by 200+ people.
I would like to stress again Bugzilla isn't a chamber of appeal of the way ja.wikipedia takes decisions. The management of the decision proceedings is mainly the ja.wikipedia responsibility. We already merged the change yesterday at 23:36 UTC, a little before your intervention. And socially, we decided we'll deploy this change some days ago.
Now, if you don't trust your ja.wikipedia community, you could also imagine a different configuration change workflow like this one:
(i) a local wiki's community asks a change and have a consensus
(ii) after the process, a page is opened on meta. to check if the community really has a consensus, were allowed to do such a change, etc.
(iii) when on meta. the matter have been decided, the bug is open on Bugzilla.
This would create a more community-managed, open process to decide matters.
[ Status: resolved fixed // this doesn't exclude further discussion but only indicated the configuration change has been merged and deployed. ]
wikipedianjp2007 wrote:
Ok, I understand your position, and you can say, in a sense, I don't trust ja.wikipedia community. Right.
I trust them as a whole in a long term, however, I do not trust some very active users who push the matter here with no respect the whole.
As you can see they can push the new rule installation with such an 'informal section' recklessly. They just want to do more with less consensus of community.
No respect for the consensus or proper due process.
I observe there some user said they shall appeal the issue and discuss then vote more broadly, but they technically ignored. Fortunately, you guys demand more consensus proof, they had to do that.
In this matter, the 'proof' they provided now is not suitable in Wiki way as I said, and many valuable discussion is omitted on purpose.
I don't know. maybe, they learn and respect consensus more from this thread, maybe not. I cannot state like this always, but please watch out.
Dereckson: Thanks!
wikipedianjp2007:
I doubt that there was "very limited discussion prior" to this poll.
May 27: The issue was first brought up by Taisyo at Idobata [1]. The discussion seems to have dispersed and didn't draw a concrete conclusion.
July 9: Another discussion started at [2].
July 25: A Request For Comments was filed for the above discussion. [3]
August 4: From many of the proposals in above, Taisyo proposes to implement one of them in advance because it is technologically trivial. [4]
September 15: Participants of this discussion establish consensus and posts on bugzilla.
The rest you can follow. Nemo_bis gave concerns, and a formal voting procedure started.
At this time, just in case you weren't checking Idobata every day and didn't notice, the announcements that a poll is going to start soon was on WP:NEWS (at which point I first saw the issue); and once the voting period started, was on Mediawiki:Sitenotice (that means on top of every single page! surely you must've saw that?) and Community Portal. The only way to get this issue more known was to put a message on every single user's talk page.
The poll had a 10 day prior-discussion period before it actually started and a week to voice any concerns. It couldn't go on forever, so there must be a fixed end date and declare the outcome at that point decisive. At least that's how it was done this time.
Curiously enough, jaWP has a how-to-document for straw polls [5] but not for more formal polls. Therefore, the organizer of this poll proposed that they borrow from the process established for Request For Adminship and Motions For De-adminship (the requirement to participate was set equal to an RfA, and the process also had a "objection period" like in the more cautious De-admin), was agreed upon, and was executed. This is as formal as it gets within the current rules agreed upon, so I don't buy your argument that this was a "simple straw poll".
But if you're intending to set up more careful and deliberate process that the jaWP community can apply for these kinds of general issues, I'm all for it.
Anyway, this issue is over for now and this is no place to discuss the general consensus establishment policy of jaWP. You might want to bring up the issue in jaWP if you're interested.
[1] "半保護に可変設定機能を追加することについて" (About adding variable functionality to semi-protection) https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%95%E6%88%B8%E7%AB%AF/subj/%E5%8D%8A%E4%BF%9D%E8%AD%B7%E3%81%AB%E5%8F%AF%E5%A4%89%E8%A8%AD%E5%AE%9A%E6%A9%9F%E8%83%BD%E3%82%92%E8%BF%BD%E5%8A%A0%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E3%81%93%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A4%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6
[2] "継続的なブロック破りユーザへの対処について" (About users repeatedly avoiding blocks) http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%E2%80%90%E3%83%8E%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88:%E8%8D%92%E3%82%89%E3%81%97#.E7.B6.99.E7.B6.9A.E7.9A.84.E3.81.AA.E3.83.96.E3.83.AD.E3.83.83.E3.82.AF.E7.A0.B4.E3.82.8A.E3.83.A6.E3.83.BC.E3.82.B6.E3.81.B8.E3.81.AE.E5.AF.BE.E5.87.A6.E3.81.AB.E3.81.A4.E3.81.84.E3.81.A6
[3] diff [[ja:WP:RFC]] https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88%E4%BE%9D%E9%A0%BC&diff=43482063&oldid=43481326
[4] "自動承認基準引き上げの先行導入について" (About raising the autoconfirm condition in advance) https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%E2%80%90%E3%83%8E%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88:%E8%8D%92%E3%82%89%E3%81%97#.E8.87.AA.E5.8B.95.E6.89.BF.E8.AA.8D.E5.9F.BA.E6.BA.96.E5.BC.95.E3.81.8D.E4.B8.8A.E3.81.92.E3.81.AE.E5.85.88.E8.A1.8C.E5.B0.8E.E5.85.A5.E3.81.AB.E3.81.A4.E3.81.84.E3.81.A6
[5] "調査投票の方法" (How to hold a straw poll) https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%BB%E6%8A%95%E7%A5%A8%E3%81%AE%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95