Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you.
I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Misplaced Pages. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats.
I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Misplaced Pages is quite limited.
I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.
I think you should wait until right is created. If you file bug now, you're requesting to add nonexisting rights (for now). — Revi10:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cenarium, I found your draft proposal to be a very interesting/good idea for effectively stopping vandalism even before admins have time to respond. Can you please keep me updated on this (it's already on my watchlist) and let me know if I can help with the proposal? Thanks, Tony Tan·talk00:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You are not a reader. Don't pretend to speak for us.
"The arguments that the media viewer is closer to the needs of readers compared to a classic file page are well supported, since nearly all readers are interested in only viewing the image with its description or caption, as opposed to reusing it or perusing metadata." No, that argument is not supported at all. As a reader whose sole participation in Misplaced Pages has been to decry the horribleness that is Media Viewer, I am tired of being told that it suits my needs. If you look at other readers who have chimed in, all prefer the old file pages. I must insist that you provided some justification for your assertion or you withdraw it.
If I click on an image, I want to know more about it or see the original image. Media Viewer hides the caption, version history (maybe I don't want the terrible "retouched" versions that some people are so fond of making) and shows me a downrezed version. It meets absolutely none of my needs. It should have never have replaced the file page, though I certainly wouldn't have cared if they added new UI to trigger it, then I could just ignore it.--98.207.91.246 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I am a reader more often that I am an editor, but it's besides the point. My assertion is justified in the sentences that follow it. The media viewer shows the caption and clicking on the image will give its full resolution, as in file pages. I have looked at all comments in the RFC, the previous RFC, and elsewhere as well. Cenarium (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The Media Viewer truncates the caption. Clicking on the image gives the full resolution, but you have to deal with the loading of the downrezed version first. File page is faster. If you're going to use your experience as a "reader," why can't the 2:1 majority use it as well and agree with every "reader" who participated in any of this who said Media Viewer should be backed out? Again, I must insist you justify your assertion or withdraw it. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't truncate the caption. The font size adjusts automatically to show the largest amount of text right below the image; in the rare event where that still isn't enough a click shows you the full version within the viewer. You may be referring to the content from the file description page. We don't show all the info from the File: page, but we do show the machine-readable description (if any), as well. These are relatively recent changes (MV used to show the filename below the image, and everything else below the fold). As someone who's followed the product from the beginning, I'd be curious about your thoughts about these specific changes, 98 (feel free to post to my talk page or email me at erik(at)wikimedia(dot)org). Yes, I understand you're still not a fan, and I read all your previous comments.
Both the File: page and MV show a down-scaled version before the full-size image. The only difference is that MV may load a larger version of the image, depending on your screen resolution. That is also the main reason at this point why it might be slower for you, depending on your connection speed. To understand how Media Viewer performs in the real world, we sample data from users around the globe and compare it with the File: page. We also have a dedicated test machine for comparison. The data shows that MV performs better than the File: page, even discounting the next/previous functionality (where MV intelligently pre-loads the next image in a sequence). See data here.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding some captions that are not entirely displayed, I mentioned this in one of my final points as "cases of improperly displayed documentation".
Opening the media viewer only when clicking on the enlarge icon is something that has been requested by some users and I had in mind in my point on allowing to customize media viewer.
A 2:1 majority said Media Viewer should be returned to opt-in. The minority largely relied on an unsupported bogus argument that "readers" prefer Media Viewer, never mind that every single "reader" who has participated in any of this says otherwise. A strong majority plus bogus arguments from the minority... in just about every situation I've been in that would qualify as consensus. But not on Misplaced Pages, apparently. And anyway, this is precisely backwards. While you have a crazy argument that there is no consensus here, it's indisputable that there is no consensus for Media Viewer to be enabled. The WMF thus gets to force their defective as designed and implemented software on us. That's bullshit. The game is rigged, and you're enabling them. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Discount the comments on both sides superseded by subsequent improvements, which only expressed personal feelings at the WMF, did not provide a rationale, were about irrelevant matters such as speculation on the WMF response, then it's much closer to 1:1: than 2:1. That there were no consensus to enable media viewer is clear to everyone, but it's insufficient to take action. I am not enabling the WMF, I recalled in my statement that the community was very unsatisfied of the way it was deployed without appropriate consultation. Cenarium (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I am another reader whose only interaction with Misplaced Pages in the last five or six years has been to comment--vocifersouly--about how terrible media viewer is. There is NOTHING about media viewer that is an improvement on the old image information page. The old page was faster, more informative, linkable in a useful manner, and did not instantly change the way in which I was interacting with the Misplaced Pages. Mediaviewer is an ugly, unecessary, intrusive, broken-by-design kludge.73.173.188.63 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Last five or six years ? I think you meant months. That doesn't really change my reading of the RFC, though. I've requested a survey on the latest media viewer version which should give us a better idea on what readers think in terms of aesthetics. Cenarium (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I mean last five or six years. I've had _zero_ interaction with the behind-the-curtain wikipedia world in that time except to comment on media viewer and report a single photo. I am a regular user of wikipedia and a one-time editor, from back before everything required account registration.73.173.188.63 (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, there are lots of readers who don't like file pages, and prefer media viewer. It's not possible to satisfy everyone. That's why I've asked the WMF to make a new survey, where the question should be more of a direct comparison, such as do you prefer file page or media viewer. This way, we'll know the proportion more precisely. Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for closing the Mediaviewer discussion and for the very long and detailed rationale. Being an administrator can be a thankless job sometimes, so I just thought I'd chime in to say Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Prior to your closing I had notified Edokter that I had concerns with his close on part-2. I was literally in the middle of filing a formal request to have it reviewed and invalidated for clear error when I saw you closed part-1. For the moment I am holding off on that submission to consider this new development.
You're probably thinking "Oh God, this guy runs around challenging any close he doesn't like". I beg you to consider that I only challenged Mdann52's initial close when he went actively non-responsive to discussion, and the virtually-unanimous result of that close review confirms that I had a reasonable and valid basis for challenging that close. I beg you to consider that I was only about to challenge Edokter's part-2 close after he also went actively non-responsive. I hope you will assume good faith on my part, and consider that maybe I see a genuine problem with his close. In a nutshell, there were "Support all but bulletpoint 6" votes in the Oppose section, as well as "Oppose only bullet point 6" votes. He basically acknowledges that does yield a level of Support worthy of consideration on 1 through 5. There are valid reasons not to return a consensus for a solid majority, but I-don't-want-to-bother is definitely not one of them.
I see you're an admin, so I'm hopeful that you're open to collaborative-discussion. Policy allows people to come to a closer and raise concerns or request improvements. The goal isn't to get the answer someone wants, the goal is a close that most accurately summarizes the results on the issue that was debated.
I'm still digesting your close. I respect that you've clearly put a lot of work and deep thought into it. I see the major theme is your difficulty determining consensus on what the Media Viewer default setting should be, and repeatedly stressing of the lack of discussion and debate on that question. I've got to run, but when I get back I'd like to try to shed some light on why it was so difficult and why you found a lack of discussion and debate. I'm really really really hoping that when I get back I find some indication from you that'd you're open to listening to that, and possibly even revising your close if you see that it could more accurately reflect the debate. Alsee (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was expecting your arrival. The second part of the RFC has been rendered essentially moot. I can explain and clarify my close, there are lots of things that I haven't detailed or mentioned because I needed to keep the statement at a reasonable length. Cenarium (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to find no indication that you're willing to listen to my concerns, and to give good-faith consideration to whether you might find that your close could be improved. Alsee (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you misunderstood, I just said that I would explain and clarify my close ? I cannot modify the close of the second part of the RFC, as it was closed by another admin. I'll listen to your concerns, and I may amend some aspects of my close if warranted. Cenarium (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah sorry, I did misunderstand. "Explain and clarify" sounded like you meant explain-and-clarify-to-me. I didn't realize it meant potentially-edit-the-close. Okeydokey, we're good. Alsee (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The reason you found a "lack of a proper discussion" and "lack of thorough debate" on what the Media Viewer default should be is because participants were explicitly not debating that question. That's not the question asked and debated at RfC. For example lets look at Support #15:
15. Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac 00:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
VanIssaac is quite deliberately withholding his arguments on media-viewer-default-setting. We can't guess at his position on that issue, or the strengths of his arguments on that issue. It's entirely possible that VanIsaac would vote for Media Viewer to be default-on, if an RfC were run on that question. It's entirely possible that VanIsaac would present an extremely powerful argument why Media Viewer should be default-off, if an RfC were run on that question. There is no way to evaluate or issue a consensus on something that is explicitly not being debated, and where people are explicitly not presenting their arguments.
The question asked and debated at RfC was "Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014". In my challenge to Mdann's original close I requested a close which answers the question that was asked. To make the issue as crystal clear as possible, I requested a close that addresses the outcome separately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC".
When I mentioned that the initiators had explicitly acknowledged the issue, I was referencing this comment that you made, which I quote "I see some comments about this RfC being too early, that the items in the Media_Viewer_consultation outcome have not yet been implemented. I based my personal position on the assumption that everything in that list does get implemented. I guess I assumed other people would interpret it the same way, but I'm not going to re-write the question. The RfC clearly asks people to review that consultation outcome, and people can intelligently respond based upon that consultation outcome."
You explicitly pointed out that the situation had changed, and that therefore, the question as posed (implementing the previous RFC results) had to be interpreted in light of those new developments. A large portion of commentators did so, and I had to do so in my closure. Not having given the community an opportunity to discuss these new developments in depth before the poll, so not knowing the community's stance on those before the poll, I had to analyze the comments made in the poll on this very question. And those new developments changed not only the question as a whole, but as to how they would apply to each of the first RFC's subquestions (logged in vs logged out).
The question as posed was simply inextricable from the recent developments and it was necessary to determine the community's take on those in order to answer it, if it had been discussed beforehand I would have known the community's stance and could have interpreted the question on its own in light of it, but it was not, so I had to determine both at the same time through this poll.
As an aside, I am quite aware that it is sometimes better to remove new software that receives a poor initial response, let things settle down, then have a reasoned discussion about it anew; this worked (almost) perfectly for pending changes (we got consensus to remove it, then consensus to reenable it). Cenarium (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Media viewer setting is an utterly trivial issue. Whether the community wants to re-assert June_2014_RfC after Superprotect is an huge issue. As long as you're trying to examine media viewer setting you're missing the debate that happened here. Again, I ask you to analyze the debate on "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and "Implement June_2014_RfC".
Discussion of Media Viewer itself is only relevant insofar as is someone might mention it as part of their reason for supporting or opposing a renewed call for somebody to get off their butt and resolve the badly backlogged action on June_2014_RfC. Any mention of improvements to media viewer are only relevant in so far as it offers their argument why they do not support issuing a renewed call on June_2014_RfC. I fully respect that argument and I actively invited it in the RfC. However participants overwhelming rejected that argument as wrong or irrelevant.
You say Implementing June_2014_RfC and better media viewer setting are inextricable.
Someone could have voted oppose in June_2014_RfC, they could still have the position that media viewer is better as opt-out, and it it perfectly valid for them to Support this RfC on the basis that they respect a valid standing consensus. Specifically in light of the Superprotect event.
Someone could have voted support in the June_2014_RfC, could still have the position that media viewer is better as opt-in, and Oppose this RfC in order to abandon the June_2014_RfC. Specifically in light of the Superprotect event.
Not only do the two issues involve different arguments, someone can literally have opposite positions on them. Alsee (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I would very much like to see the list you say gets close to 1:1. It would very much help clear up whether I am misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding me, or both. At least a bare list of comment-numbers which you are discarding to reach that result, although any more detailed explanation you provide would be helpful. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I can list those if you want, but what about the first part of my answer, on the argument of implementing the previous RFC vs underlying issue ? Cenarium (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Done, and history merged. Though there is still 
