Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Task force
Attracting more participation
editWe need to keep prodding the task members without seeming to be badgering them. Coords and task force members can do this by advancing the project and providing other task force members with material to discuss and develop. We can also discuss methods to invite more users to contribute constructively and positively to the project along the lines of:
- If you are concerned with the present situation at RfA and are interested in reform of the system, you are invited to contribute to the reform project at WP:RFA2011. If you have time and are inclined, you may also wish to consider joining the task force.
By this, it is not meant to attract people who will negatively criticise it, or just repeat again what the issues are. We know what the problems are with RfA, and that's why we are here already. One of the the best sources for participants to invite is among those who vote regularly at RfA who have voiced dissatisfaction in the system at one time or another, or who are , or have been active at voluntary clerking, i.e. making rebuttals at inappropriate !votes and comments, or removing long threads to the talk page,etc. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Task force pruning
editThis project is aimed at users who are clearly in favour of finding solutions to prevent drama at RfA. In the light of recent events and an unbroken 3-year history of participation at RfA that is not compliant with the objectives of this project, I am considering removing Keepscases from the task force. Unless there are truly compelling reasons for retaining his name on the list, I shall remove it in 7 days.
--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's a shame; I understand, but ..... no hope, I suppose, of 'bringing him around / re-educating'? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Um. I don't think that's a good idea. There's a significant minority who not only don't mind Keepsakes pov, but they actively agree with it. Unless he is actively disrupting the task force/project, I think that having an opposing point of view is something we should encourage. I'm afraid that I don't see Keepscases history of participation quite as disruptive as you do, and would be happy to discuss it, but removing him seems unneccessary and WP:CABALesque. WormTT · (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I always felt that the purpose of this task force is to collaborate and examine possibilities for genuine reform with a view to making some concrete proposals to the broader community. That would be the moment where detractors can have their say - and sure enough, there will be plenty of them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you there, and if Keepscases was detracting (rather than having an opposite opinion), then I'd agree with his removal. Similarly, if Epipelagic were to add his name, he clearly has a point to make and would not be helpful coming up with a solution. But opposing opinions can help solutions, and until Keepscases actively does something which is unhelpful to this project, I don't see that he should be removed. WormTT · (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- One editor has now completely retired from Wikipedias a direct result of the latest Keepscases issue, and with it, their participation on the task force. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can I ask why you are blaming Keepscases? IE have you had private discussion with the retired editor? "I can't to do it, all the fighting, the bickering, I just can't deal with it at this moment. I'll be back though -- one day" does imply to me that the issue was a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation. Since Tofu's last post was on your page, I'm assuming you two were friends, and that there's a possibility you're not being completely objective here. WormTT · (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Also, if you do have rapport with him still, send him my best, and let him know I look forwad to his return WormTT · (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong actually, even though I have been a teacher for the best part of the last 30 years, I don't usually develop friendships with my pupils, and certainly not virtual ones, and there was no very recent contact with Tofu. AFAIK he is very busy preparing for the up coming end of term exams. No, in fact he was an editor whom I have been mentoring for a while, and who might have stood a very fair chance of proving that some of the younger contributors to Wikipedia are a lot more mature than many of the adults. I have no need to pursue the contact now that he has retired. Nevertheless, I am very sorry to see him go, and even more disappointed in a community that allows these hateful discussions to have such an effect on people - especially when users are yelling at us from all corners to treat our younger members with 'kid' gloves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies if I have offended you with the suggestion of friendship. I'm certainly sympathetic to your mentoring younger members of our community, I'm currently helping 4-5 myself. I too hate to see a good editor leave, and I've seen a half a dozen good editors leave over the RfA process, which is one of my motivations to help fix it. However, I'm not willing to punish one editor just because another one has dramatically left. He says he'll be back, and I hope he will. WormTT · (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- No offense taken whatsoever, I was merely stating a fact so that we keep the perspective. Nor was I for a moment suggesting that we punish anyone for his retirement. I'm just amused and concerned that one user continues to be allowed a stage and a spotlight to himself for participation that clearly does not lend a serious edge to the Wikipedia, and for which other users can expect a block or a topic ban. This discussion may be about people expressing their religious or political beliefs in their user pages - but it was precipitated by using a RfA as a soapbox for POV pushing, and making irrelevant !votes just to make the WP:POINT. I see that as clearly disruptive, and the kind of drama that we have begun this project to avoid, and which is preventing candidates of the right calibre from coming forward. I know Tofu as well as one can through the anonymity of collaborative Internet work, and unfortunately when he says he might be back, although I very much hope he will, to be truthful, I'm not overly optimistic that it will be for any time yet.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies if I have offended you with the suggestion of friendship. I'm certainly sympathetic to your mentoring younger members of our community, I'm currently helping 4-5 myself. I too hate to see a good editor leave, and I've seen a half a dozen good editors leave over the RfA process, which is one of my motivations to help fix it. However, I'm not willing to punish one editor just because another one has dramatically left. He says he'll be back, and I hope he will. WormTT · (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong actually, even though I have been a teacher for the best part of the last 30 years, I don't usually develop friendships with my pupils, and certainly not virtual ones, and there was no very recent contact with Tofu. AFAIK he is very busy preparing for the up coming end of term exams. No, in fact he was an editor whom I have been mentoring for a while, and who might have stood a very fair chance of proving that some of the younger contributors to Wikipedia are a lot more mature than many of the adults. I have no need to pursue the contact now that he has retired. Nevertheless, I am very sorry to see him go, and even more disappointed in a community that allows these hateful discussions to have such an effect on people - especially when users are yelling at us from all corners to treat our younger members with 'kid' gloves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can I ask why you are blaming Keepscases? IE have you had private discussion with the retired editor? "I can't to do it, all the fighting, the bickering, I just can't deal with it at this moment. I'll be back though -- one day" does imply to me that the issue was a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation. Since Tofu's last post was on your page, I'm assuming you two were friends, and that there's a possibility you're not being completely objective here. WormTT · (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Also, if you do have rapport with him still, send him my best, and let him know I look forwad to his return WormTT · (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- One editor has now completely retired from Wikipedias a direct result of the latest Keepscases issue, and with it, their participation on the task force. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you there, and if Keepscases was detracting (rather than having an opposite opinion), then I'd agree with his removal. Similarly, if Epipelagic were to add his name, he clearly has a point to make and would not be helpful coming up with a solution. But opposing opinions can help solutions, and until Keepscases actively does something which is unhelpful to this project, I don't see that he should be removed. WormTT · (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I always felt that the purpose of this task force is to collaborate and examine possibilities for genuine reform with a view to making some concrete proposals to the broader community. That would be the moment where detractors can have their say - and sure enough, there will be plenty of them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Um. I don't think that's a good idea. There's a significant minority who not only don't mind Keepsakes pov, but they actively agree with it. Unless he is actively disrupting the task force/project, I think that having an opposing point of view is something we should encourage. I'm afraid that I don't see Keepscases history of participation quite as disruptive as you do, and would be happy to discuss it, but removing him seems unneccessary and WP:CABALesque. WormTT · (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Adding a neutral vote (which is designed to effectively be a comment on the RfA, as it doesn't affect the outcome), based on the the opinion about a wikiproject, of which the nominator is a member is definitely disruptive. It is certainly pointy, and while I don't have a problem with his questions, nor do I blame him for Tofu leaving, I would support a topic ban from RfA related areas (and perhaps taking it to WP:AN might be a good idea). Until that point, where the community feels he is not helpful to RfA, I still believe it's inappropriate to remove him from this project. WormTT · (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Although I think Keepscases has been a net negative to RfA, removing them from this taskforce would probably cause even more problems. You don't just want a taskforce with smooth internal discussion; you want a taskforce whose output will be trusted by the rest of en.wikipedia. That goal is harder to achieve if bystanders can (and they gleefully will) point out that a dissenter was muffled. bobrayner (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)