Misplaced Pages

User:Ned Scott/sandbox4

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.
< User:Ned Scott

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ned Scott (talk | contribs) at 07:21, 10 January 2008 (→Statement by Ned Scott). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:21, 10 January 2008 by Ned Scott (talk | contribs) (→Statement by Ned Scott)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Rollback

'''Initiated by ''' ~~~ '''at''' ~~~~~

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Other related pages:

Older proposal:

Statement by Ned Scott

I'm preposing this as a case for arbcom because I believe this will be best venue for discussion. This has angered a lot of users, and raises a lot of questions, and needs a structured discussion with some formal process to it. Being able to discuss this in an arbcom case, and then asking the arbitrators to evaluate the concerns presented, seems to be the only actionable and reasonable way to deal with this situation.

We have several issues that this situation has caused. One is a premature process being rolled out the moment the feature was activated, without any real planning, with several objections along the way, and the very process lacking in any real community discussion or consensus.

After dev JeLuF turned the feature on, Majorly takes Ryan Postlethwaite's proposed process page and moves it to Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback. Less than five minutes later the first request comes in. Less than thirty minutes later a watch list notice is added. A bot is even ready, waiting to be used. (thought it was blocked for not having a bot request. Later unblocked.)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for rollback fills up with discussion about how to carry out the process, and things to consider. At first single admins are approving users, then it's later requested that at least three admins approve requests. People have concerns about how fast archiving happens. As I write this, the criteria itself is still changing. Several users bring up that they didn't support the proposal as-is. This is clearly not ready for widespread use.

Sean Williams protected Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback with the rationale that the process needed more discussion. John Reaves decided to ignore this and unprotect the page, without sufficient discussion on the talk page or even discussing it with Sean.

The proposal page itself wasn't even edited to indicate that the process had been put into action.

Random832 brings up the best point I've heard in all of this: "EVERYBODY CALM DOWN. ok, are you calm now? listen to this: The developers did not implement the proposal that was voted on. They implemented a single technical feature. There was a wide consensus, including many of the oppose voters, that we should have some form of this feature. If you don't like the proposal, you're free to suggest alternatives for what the policy or process or whatever should be for giving rollback. We are not bound to the proposal. —Random832 02:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)"

He brings up a very good point. This whole time, some users have been using the fact that the feature was activated as a declaration of consensus. Most of us were too worked up over the fact that a dev made the change to notice the core of the issue, that rollback was going to be enabled in some way (strong support for bots, and indications of strong support for scripts, strong support for regrouping the general proposal), but the process on this page, as we see it, was not it. Not even among those who supported rollback. They quickly acted on their own, too excited that we had the feature turned on, to even stop and think that we were still far from being ready to implement anything. In good faith, but in haste.

As Sean William put it, "...the process reeks of complete and total chaos"

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)