Commons talk:Requests and votes

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Restructuring of pages[edit]

Does anyone mind if I move a few pages round here? I've never understood why Requests and votes is a subpage of Commons:Administrators, as it mixes up several different non-admin things. It includes not only requests to be made an admin but also requests to be made a 'crat, checkuser and oversighter as well as bot requests.

I would suggest some structure along these lines:

with all of the transcluded individual requests being archived to respective /Archive pages.

Then, to save users having to watch the requests pages separately, transcluding all the requests together (essentially as now) on a new top-level page Commons:Requests and votes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea IMHO. Could you add the information on who is authorised to vote on these pages? Not everyone might look for that in Commons:Administrators. --Leyo 12:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Seem like a sensible suggestion. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't you mean Commons:Bureaucrats/Bureaucrat requests instead of Commons:Administrators/Bureaucrat requests (and likewise for the others)? If that's the case, then I suggest shortening the subpage name to simply requests, like so: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests. –Tryphon 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh yes, let me try that again (see above). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do. I wanted to do this a long time ago. If you're going to make Commons:Requests and votes, maybe make the subpages from there? Commons:Requests and votes/Administrators, Commons:Requests and votes/Bureaucrats, etc. Rocket000 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, there are masses of subpages to Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes of course. I'm not going to break things by doing a straight move of everything over to Commons:Requests and votes, am I, leaving re-directs behind? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No. Move-subpages should work nicely (depending on what maximummovedpages is set to for commons.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It claims to be 100, which should be ok. Trying it now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope. A moment ago it said there were 72 subpages. Now it tells me there are 603! How does one get around that? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but I didn't understand what's going to be in the "/xxx requests" subpages. Are the requests being transcluded there and then there's a new transclusion on Commons:Requests and votes? Patrícia msg 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the idea. Individual transclusions on the /Requests pages, then a separate transclusion of all of them to Commons:Requests and votes so that users don't need to watch the Requests pages separately. But I have come to a halt, as the system will not let me move 603 subpages. Anyone able to do that by script? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
w:User talk:Anomie has a bot that will do that, although I don't know how active he is. MBisanz talk 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I can do it if someone explains what needs doing :)  — Mike.lifeguard 01:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. Just about ready to go now. Would you be able to move Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes to Commons:Requests and votes along with all the subpages (lots), please? I should be able to clean it up from there. Many thanks, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done — Mike.lifeguard 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. I thought the subpages were supposed to be under Commons:Administrators/Requests and not under Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes? I got that confusion, because of the new subpage format on the "hit" button (located at this page). --Kanonkas(talk) 16:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you are asking there. Did you find something that didn't work? The button looks OK to me, but perhaps I missed something. For a new admin request by user xxxx, the subpage should be Commons:Administrators/Requests/xxxx. I haven't moved the old requests to the new structure as there are over 600 of them, and they are all mixed up with admin, crat, bot etc. The archives still work for those requests, though, because there are redirects. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking why the old requests weren't moved to the new page, or if there was some mixup here with the new format. I wasn't sure, which is why I asked. However shouldn't we fix the archives, despite the big numbers of archives mixed up? I can try to help out a few. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not sure it's worth it as it would be a massive amount of work unless anyone can find a way to script it. And the only way people will access the old requests is through the archive pages which work fine via the redirects. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've done some page-moves. Now there are some double redirects that needs to be fixed. --Kanonkas(talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. Why are the pages being moved again? Rocket000 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Because they should be under their subsections. For example oversight requests goes under Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Username, while administrator requests goes under Commons:Administrators/Requests/Username. --Kanonkas(talk) 09:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of these can probably be deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done. All complete now, I think. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Bureaucratship stays for two weeks[edit]

I'm posting here because I do not agree with this change: [1]. While this might have been a bold change, I think this one needs more consensus before being adapted. My personal opinion is that I don't support RfB's to stay for two weeks, one week is enough IMO. Basically, it's long enough to give everyone time to discuss their opinion. Keeping it open for two weeks is just for the sake of keeping it open. However this is my sole opinion, I'm posting to let the community to voice their opinion about this change. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter?
Given Commons is a "hub" project (ie ignored by many) allowing more time seems sensible?
In practice Commons is rarely in need of 'crats, if it were then shorter would be better if not then see the previous comments :) --Herby talk thyme 17:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Two weeks makes a lot of sense to me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Herby - I think Commons is large enough, and keeping it two weeks is not of benefit, IMO. I understand for CU/OS, but not for RfB. Despite Commons not having a lot of RfBs, that does not mean we should add a two weeks requirements, to let more people add their opinion. One week is more then sufficiently enough time to voice any concern, or support one may have for a user right, as bureaucrat. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it always was two weeks. I don't remember any RfBs (or any RfX besides RfA) closing in less time. Regardless of whether or not that's a good thing, this isn't something new. Rocket000 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I take that back. I guess some were closed earlier. Maybe I was thinking of RfCUs. Rocket000 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess that this is a follow-up to this discussion. I personally do not mind if these elections run for one or two weeks or if the 'crats wait until consensus is found or no additional significant votes are to be expected. But I think that it is helpful to all participants if we know beforehand how and when an election is closed. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That's why I changed it now, while there are no ongoing elections. We have run some for two weeks and some for only one, but I think stating it's two weeks, as many other wikis do, is a good thing to get on paper. We have 250 or so admins... one week is fine. But those who want to be crats should be showing deliberatness, I think, and make sure that everyone is on board. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support (formally) extending to two weeks. I'm fairly active but sometimes I don't notice as a new RfA when I've been occupied RL for a few days, others who check in even less often than I do could still offer valuable opnions on RfB's. We have something like 2 or 3 RfB per year, and extending the voting period for these to two weeks shouldn't be much of a problem. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it worth i dislike long elections and i believe commons enough grown up to have one week elections and of course i do respect the community decision about timing of the election --Mardetanha talk 22:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Mardetanha and I'm not sure I understand why 2 weeks are felt necessary for all RfBs. If a candidate has near 100% support after 1 week, it would seem to me sensible to promote them. If there's ambiguity, crats have the discretion to extend. Bureaucrats don't deal have rights with the same sensitive/non-public data issues that checkusers/oversighters (for which the period is two weeks) have. It doesn't look to me like Commons RfBs closed in one week have lacked input and I'm not sure what problem doubling the length of the discussion is trying to solve. I do think it would have been better to have a public discussion (such as this one here) before the change was made... WJBscribe (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with WJB. I think the bureaucrat team also need to work on getting a bit more public. While talking privately over mails can be good, so is taking it publicly. I feel non-bureaucrats should have their say in discussions. If there is no reason to keep it privately, then why do so? I think keeping it secretly can do more harm then good. There might be some incidents where taking it privately may do some good, but generally it should be publicly, like in this case. --Kanonkas(talk) 00:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would just change it to say 1-2 weeks and leave up to the 'crats. This way it sets some boundaries—no less than 1 week, no more than 2 weeks. Some RfBs need longer than others. If someone's getting 90%+ support (or opposition), 1 week is good, but if someone's around 70-80%, 2 weeks is better. Commons moves at a slower rate than some projects (just look at the DRs!) and there's really no reason to hurry. It's not like there's tons of 'crat work that needs to be done. Rocket000 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Rocket I think - this is Commons after all :) --Herby talk thyme 09:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't like any hard and fast rule ("no more than two weeks") as that really restricts the 'crats' discretion. Similarly, defaulting to an uncertain period ("between one and two weeks") makes the whole thing very unclear. Let's keep it at either one week or two (my preference), with the usual 'crat discretion to keep the discussion open longer if need be. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, 'crats would still be able to extend the time, it's just some discussion would be needed beforehand (like it is now). I was mainly reaching towards some sort of compromise. Maybe a plain 10 days would work? Rocket000 (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah but what happens if the 'crats then think it should be extended ;)...
All in all I'm actually inclined to leave it to the 'crats - they should have leeway to deal with things if they see fit. Hard & fast rules are fine for some places but maybe not needed on Commons.
That said it doesn't strike me as the most important issue of the time. --Herby talk thyme 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think this is a community issue, not a bureaucrat one. While the bureaucrats can give their opinion, I don't think they are the ones to make their final say in this requirement. However I agree they should deal with things as they think it may fit, or even better, propose it here if they think that's needed. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
So how to move forward then? I see more voices favoring 2 than 1, and also a pretty large contingent of "don't care" ... ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should move forward too quickly. This talk page rarely has any active discussion as a matter of fact. I think we should be open for more opinions, as you never know. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure... maybe we should give it... oh, I don't know... 2 weeks? :) ++Lar: t/c 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any major issue, either way (although I can honestly say I'm not sure why it needs to be 2 weeks, generally - exceptions can be made, but no need for a general rule). I do, however, not like to see the crats completely disregarding those wishes of the community because "they know better". They are elected to judge consensus, not create nor modify policy. Before a change was made, there should have been a community discussion and in it, the crats should have held no more weight than anybody else. Since Lar took it upon himself to make the change, I didn't think there was any point in undoing it, given the discussion above was/is ongoing, but lets remember not to do this sort of thing in the future. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh? I may be missing what you're saying... I thought the change was uncontroversial as it was codifying what we had done in the past (although not consistently) so I boldly made it. Someone reverted it and brought it here, and now we're discussing it and we'll go with the consensus. Seems pretty routine to me. Not all changes need discussion beforehand, as long as discussion happens if it is needed. See w:WP:BRD which is an interesting essay (although certainly not policy here or there). Why was there "no point in undoing it" ? ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't realized that it already was undone, before my comment. If it hadn't been, there would be no point in doing so, as discussion was already underway and why revert back and forth during discussion? Of course BRD is a good thing, but a change like this is bound to be controversial in the eyes of some. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Then you revert like Kanonkas did and start the discussion. No big deal. That's how it should be. Especially on Commons where it's sometimes useless to try and discuss beforehand. Being bold is the best way to get people's attention, right? ;) When I first saw the change (before it was undone) I didn't give it a second thought. I would have thought it noncontroversial too. And judging by this discussion, I still think that. One major objector doesn't really make it controversial, it just means a little discussion is needed[Edit: Ok, with the addition of Majorly's comment it's getting closer to "controversial". Two major objectors. ;)]. They are elected to judge consensus, not create nor modify policy. True, but that doesn't mean they can't help edit them, they're just like any other user in that regard. I don't think it's relevant that Lar happens to be a 'crat.
@Kanonkas: While the bureaucrats can give their opinion, I don't think they are the ones to make their final say in this requirement. I see no indication that they were even thinking about doing that. I think we should be open for more opinions, as you never know. Yes, but I'm curious what kind of opinions you imagine others might have. It seems to me every plausible option is already on the table. 1 week, 2 weeks, somewhere in the middle, all of the above. Or did you mean you want more people to voice their preference out of those? Rocket000 (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about the latter part. My bad for not being clear. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks is much too long in my opinion, and it is sad to see the bureaucrats around here yet again trying to rule the roost over how things work. Bureaucrat judge the results of these discussions, not the way the discussions are run. They are not above and beyond the community. Majorly talk 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly true, and I agree with you. However, what's wrong with two weeks? Frankly, I see little need for time limits or guidelines at all, so this bickering back and forth about one or two weeks seems to miss the point entirely. Sadly, I've come to expect that here.  — Mike.lifeguard 01:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It would be far easier to simply take each request on a case-by-case basis. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This is essentially what I was getting at with my comment about what the crats are elected to do. I agree with Majorly, and this is a trend that needs to be stopped. Seems to be happening more and more as of late, but I suppose that this discussion doesn't really belong here, so I'll not press the issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"I agree with Majorly, and this is a trend that needs to be stopped." O rly? :) Majorly talk 12:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

New vote format[edit]

Did I miss the memo? Why did we stop using templates and are now separating supports/opposes? (And numbers, but that's been going on for longer) Rocket000 (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And why does the "Voice your opinion" link only lead to the "Support" subsection? Pruneautalk 08:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
templates - en folk don't understand multi lingual projects ;)
separating votes - en folk do it like that...
numbering - not a clue - maybe en folk.....
ho hum --Herby talk thyme 13:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The link just references a subsection by number, and it looks like there's a heading level missing, so it's probably meant to point to a heading one level above the support and oppose sections. LX (talk, contribs) 14:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
So this wasn't intentional? Just some en folk not familiar with the way things are here? They're taking over our RfAs now! Can they get enough back home? ;-) Rocket000 (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
✓ Added votes section. Is the section necessarily be hidden? Kwj2772 (msg) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So can we go back to the way things were? No separating into sections, no numbering and using templates to help with multi-lingualness? WJBscribe (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the big deal with the new format? It's much easier to keep up with the votes as it is now, and more helpful for the voters. Same goes to the numbering. The "templates" bit, is, as far as I know, optional. It is up to the voters how they choose to vote, that includes with or without a templated vote. Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The symbols in those templates are easily understandable regardless of the language(s) you speak. Language aside, it's easier to look at the list of votes and instantly get a good idea where it's going. I hate seeing empty sections and the votes separated. Aesthetics, I guess. I also like seeing things order by date. The numbers imply it's a strictly majority thing. Votes do not fit in three categories when it comes to the voters' intent and how much weight the 'crat assigns to it. It's more like a range or a spectrum. Yes, weak opposes are still opposes, but if the case becomes borderline these are taken into account. When people change votes, they can't write their new vote next to the old one. Those things don't matter as much as the fact we simply like it that way. Let's go back to the old way. This happen by accident it seems, so there's nothing to discuss I don't think. Rocket000 (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm.. I guess it wasn't an accident. Sorry, I changed the preloads back. Based on this discussion, things should stay the way they are unless a memo does go around and we discuss it. Rocket000 (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on election analysis[edit]

Proposal to rename account creator group to batch uploaders[edit]

Hello, there is currently a VP proposal open that needs more communtiy input that is relevant to this page, please take a look and input your opinion. ~riley (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)