Wikibooks talk:FlaggedRevs Extension/Unstable

Where to put things
The code on this page reflects more than just the configuration for flagged revisions. If anything, this page and the root should be moved to a new name to document the changes Wikibooks has made to the basic configuration applied to all Wikimedia wikis. Then use to document the project-specific culture surrounding flagged revisions, with Help:Revision review covering the generic procedure on use of the extension. – Adrignola talk 18:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a new page complementing the existing Help:Revision review, as you describe.


 * Originally, page FlaggedRevs Extension was just the initial configuration and the consensus vote to enable it. The page remained just that for quite a while even after the configuration was changed, until I finally got bold enough to add to the front of the page the current configuration, with at the start of that a list of links to the bugzilla requests that shaped it and consensus votes for those requests.  I would have made the page only the current configuration and associated lists of links, except that I meant to preserve the original consensus vote including what it was a vote for.  (If I were doing it now I might have just renamed the existing page to something like Wikibooks:FlaggedRevs Extension/Initial configuration, and provided that as the link for the first consensus.)


 * I'm all for documenting stuff, but it seems to me that FlaggedRevs Extension is a techie page, as reflected by its techie title. I'm inclined to think prose explanations probably don't belong there.  They'd be happier somewhere that's actually devoted to prose explanation, well clear of the configuration code.  Most likely, the only changes at FlaggedRevs Extension should be adding to the lead sentence a link to the new Wikibooks:Revision review, adding links to the new consensus vote and associated bugzilla (this is supposing such comes to pass), and updating the current configuration to reflect the newly reached consensus so that it remains a faithful representation of what we have voted for.


 * It's not clear, at least not yet clear, to me quite what sort of content is being constructed here, so I'm not sure where it ought to go. Right now it seems to be description of what's being changed, which seems like it belongs back at the ongoing discussion in the reading room (where there is a description; perhaps the point of a third description is to have it at yet another level of abstraction?).  --Pi zero (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe this is looking to be an expanded summary of what is being changed, without the intimidation posed by the large discussion in which things were hashed out. We frankly may not see anyone else put forth a position in the support/neutral/oppose sections due to that and the technical nature of the proposal.  This may be hoping to remedy that by creating something more approachable. – Adrignola talk 23:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reconfiguring Wikibooks
I have one stipulation, we need to have a separate group who can mark pages as featured. That way the Admins won't have such a load. We can just call it "Featurer", but it is necessary! Arlen22 (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

as defined in rev 1873216 of the proposal page. Arlen22 (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Both positions are contradictory. Since the version you support doesn't provide for that group (to what requirement I agree) but as you state it as a stipulation you make your possition contradictory. You can, as I am, be neutral and not oppose the change or move for the alteration and oppose the proposal. I would second you on promoting the change.
 * In any case lets not restart a vote here at this moment since the previous one hasn't reached any special decision and the comments there are still pertinent for the process. State your position there, note that the target has moved yet again some provision have been added to the creation and alteration of filters). I'll make a post on your talk. --Panic (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We're close to closure on the proposal (I disagree on the not reaching a special decision) due to overwhelming support after a long, tiring process of weighing views, making compromises, and determining what will work best for as many as possible. – Adrignola talk 18:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that the initial vote process was premature and the actual reading of the supporting votes isn't clearcut (as seen above). I have advocated in the past for initiating the process by a call for objections. Well lets put it in practice, the only standing objection to what is now refereed as rev 1868898 is Thenub314. I with the help of Adrignola have created a clear restatement of the proposal, that was has now been updated to include some alterations.
 * Counterproposal

My simple counterproposal is as fallows: A reseting of positions and take the present version 1873356 as the common ground for building upon for consensus. A phase for restating concerns and proposals for alteration to the active version. That can start now as there will be no conflict to the process, or current positions. If changes are agreed then another phase to alter the proposal and for anyone to raise objections to the changes made to it and restart the process. (7 days of inactivity of the thread to consider a phase ended ) Any objections to this? --Panic (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

--Arlen22 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Considerations regarding proposal 1873356
Adrignola, for my benefit and others, what were the changes done from the mentioned 1873081 (my last edit), that equated to [ rev 1868918] (the version objected by Thenub314) to the present 1873356 ? --Panic (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone's been noting the reading room revision in listing support, but Arlen started pointing to this page's revisions instead. This isn't the official proposal page.  The note at the top of this content page notes what version of the reading room it reflects.  The only change involves the edit filter extension.    To alleviate your concerns about the edit filter being a power grab, I've added a configuration option that removes the ability for admins to define filters that would block users (such that they would have to request unblock and hope their request doesn't go unnoticed) or remove users from groups (such as bureaucrat).  That limits the effect of edit filters to innocuous actions such as tagging an edit in recent changes or warning the user visually, preventing abuse of the anti-abuse system.  You've had concerns about administrators not having to get consensus to make changes.  I've felt it would add extra bureaucracy given that these filters shouldn't interfere or be noticed by good-faith contributors and are not some means for admins to determine what is "allowed" at Wikibooks. – Adrignola talk 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sincerely I doubt that anyone not involved with the discussion from the begging could make head or tails from it (or have the time and patience to work at it). I could even argue that the process was extremely badly run, but that wouldn't advance the resolution of the issues. If you like we can discuss the subject later as this is not the first time that I felt frustrated as how the decision process gets implemented is this convoluted way, and why I pressed for a clarified version to be available not only to me but to the community. I don't oppose having low impact decisions run on the general discussion forum but more care should be made to create an ordered environment where people come to mutual understanding (This is somewhat done for policies and gidelines at Policies and guidelines/Vote). I have myself had difficulties understanding the discussion (it wasn't even advanced as a proposal at first), most support votes are diffuse and one is contradictory, even Mike's neutral stance expresses a misunderstanding as he refers Editors, ultimately the right place to run a proposal is were we agree to, it is all circumstantial. But lets leave that for the later.
 * I acknowledge that your last changes address my preoccupation, not as a power grab as you state, but as avoidance of future conflicts or disturbances in the present. In that regard I'm satisfied by the changes made, and now I can't foresee a situation where unrecoverable harm or escalation of tensions could occur by the particular use of the new extension.
 * I've also thought about why WK decided to create the Editors group, the position I and other that now have came forward expressed on the abolishment of it passing the right only to the admins group. This is the only reason that I don't support the proposal, but see it as an improvement over the status quo. This is also a game changer for the requesting of permissions, will we from now on require new admins to be reviewers ? Can we now object to have present editors request the admin flag just to categorize their own work as "featured". (the determination of this term should be also made before final approval) --Panic (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why anyone up for consideration to be an admin wouldn't already have been autopromoted to reviewer. Even if they somehow weren't, the admin group has the rights of the reviewer group assigned to it as well. A request to be an admin for the purposes of reviewing pages wouldn't be taken seriously considering all of the other responsibilities associated with the group (such as deletions and blocks). – Adrignola talk 21:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the cataloging of pages as featured would be restricted to the admins group that qualifies as an administrative task (it all depends on what we define here that classification to be, it still isn't), but your reply seems contradictory, I read it as you expect requests for adminship to be only from the reviewer group (in itself a distinction, at present I don't see that as a requirement myself), I don't see any rational way one could refuse a request from anyone on the previous editors groups (they will by now have demonstrated confidence in using the system and with the change will have even rollback capabilities) what would you state as a reason not to take seriously people that have demonstrated to the community to have an invested interest in the wellbeing of the project? --Panic (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I read that facet of it as saying that if the community is willing to trust someone with the admin tools, then the community is surely willing to trust them with the reviewer bit. (Or, to state the same thing from the pessimistic side, if the community isn't willing to trust someone with the reviewer bit, then the community is surely not willing to trust them with the admin tools.)  --Pi zero (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not precisely the reviewer since it is an auto-promoted tool (but similar since it will now have rollback), I was indicating the standing editor group (a bit more experienced and goal oriented than the normal reviewer). But the issue is that turning the quality review of works into an administrative task will therefore require administrators to perform them. This bring into consideration what constitutes the task and how will it be implemented (that is left undefined on the proposal), as I stated I would move to support the proposal if the use of the categorization would fallow an open process of decision (this would also remove the need to define it now).
 * The other consideration is that since the abolishing of page patrol and now rollback we removed the normal pool of Wikibookians that we normally selected as demonstrating a will to perform the administrative tasks.
 * As we continue to move the requirements up (for instance the process to make Adrignola an admin clearly showed the changes that have occurred there), it is important to understand the impact automated access to tools brings and understand that those automated tools do provide some level of validation to users actions on the project, this also has an impact on how we set the bar to those accesses, we have to keep in mind that any user in 30 day + 100 edits will now be able to get unsupervised rollback. I know that people have been moving that bar lower but we should keep the eye on the ball, probably the top reason for the filters. --Panic (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)