Wikiversity talk:Community Review
From Wikiversity
Contents |
[edit] Blocked user review
If this review is for discussing problems, is there any reason why a blocked user cannot ask for a review here? [1] Or is there a procedure that e must follow? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 11:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Moulton has been putting notices and comments all over Wikiversity, many of which I and evidently many others see as disruptive - so reverting his edits is not refusing a request for a review, but rather is a strategy for containing Moulton's disruption. We still need to document the run up to Moulton's block, and we still need to address some of Moulton's concerns - but we need to do so without playing 'games', as Moulton likes doing. Cormaggio talk 11:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I take your answer to be (b): there is a procedure that e should follow. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Can we discuss WV IRC channels?
Is it fair and within bounds to bring up the banning and unbanning of people on IRC, here on Wikiversity:Community Review? Emesee 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Subpages would be a good idea
I'm not sure why it wasn't set up this way earlier, but shouldn't the topics on the review page be subpaged so that individual discussions can be closed when appropriate? I suppose we could do it after the fact, but of course we lose the edit histories when we do it that way. --SB_Johnny talk 15:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- We should probably also section the page better, because some of the threads are getting long. On an active page like this it is important to allow section edits without edit save collisions. --mikeu talk 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Please weigh in with your opinions on whether or not the block should be kept or removed, and nothing else."
Folks, What happened?
SB Johnny wrote those words that appear in the title above in Wikiversity:Community Review#One thing at a time: should JWSchmidt be unblocked?. Wikiversitians produced their opinions. Then SB Johnny suggested that the unblock be based on some conditions that he was initiating (which may be similar to wikiversity:respect people or other guidelines that wikiversitians are currently developing), because some wikiversitians have asked for it but most wikiversitians have said nothing else. Then he said, concerning Emesee's summary, "I consider this "condensation" to be a simple vote count, without taking any account of the subtleties involved in reaching a consensus." What happened? Johnny, I am very confused as to what your position is. And do you still believe that "the block itself is now causing disruption"? Best wishes, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes in a consensus discussion the original options don't fit the need of the community. In this case, there was a lot of misgivings expressed about unblocking, presumably because people were concerned that it would open the door for what happened leading up to the block, so I tried to provide a general guideline for JWSchmidt (and everyone else) to follow that would serve to avoid that. --SB_Johnny talk 10:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- IOW, the discussion before the "yes or no" had far too many conflated issues, so I asked for discussion of a more narrow scope so that we could start getting the first issue squared away. However, the responses made it clear that a "yes, but only if..." option was more generally favored. Insisting on a binary interpretation (vote count) when there was clearly a third way preferred by many runs contrary to how consensus works, and I don't want to support a decision made on that basis. Yes, I still feel the block is disruptive, but creating new disruption to undo it isn't a step in the right direction. --SB_Johnny talk 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think SB Johnny just pointed out one of the hardest things for admins to admit, across the wikis, and that is the potential for the block to be disruptive itself. Dzonatas 20:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you! Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Guideline
I would prefer no tag to the current "Guideline" tag, as I think it invites users to ignore the results of CR's. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I took the tag down. This page isn't a guideline, nor a policy. Probably not a process either, but rather a discussion forum where a certain kind of process takes place. We need a better language to describe things like this. --SB_Johnny talk 09:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that CQ considers such forums "Processes". The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- It seems so. He was also working on Wikiversity:Process. Then there is the recently created {{process}} and maybe others. I think we should be carefull about reclassifying the page after people have showed support for a particular version becuase it might get confusing if some supported it without the template and others with it. Personally, I agree with the removal of {{guideline}} and support the page as a policy. But, I am not too particular about what we call it, the content is the more important issue for me. --mikeu talk 18:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that CQ considers such forums "Processes". The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
