Wikidata talk:Requests for comment/Reforming the property creation process

Correction

For the sake of clarity, I've amended Pasleim's first bullet point, to reflect the actual resolution; and added links to the relevant sections. I would ask User:Pasleim to amend his closing statement to explicitly note that the other proposals failed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Noting that all other proposals failed is not necessary as such statements just would reflect current practice. --Pasleim (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding User:Pasleim's third bullet point:

"Only users who have the ability to create properties should close property creation proposals, i.e. setting status to done, not done or withdrawn."

the examples do not appear in the proposal which was discussed:

"Only users who have the ability to create properties should close property creation proposals (successfully or not)."

and there appears to be no consensus for them in the subsequent discussion. Disallowing closure as "withdrawn" is particularly problematical, as I explained in the discussion. No-one subsequently disagreed with, let alone refuted, the points I made. Similarly, disallowing the closure of obvious duplicates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Even though only a few user participated in the discussion What counts as closing a discussion? I concluded that closing a proposal means setting status to done, not done or withdrawn. --Pasleim (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pasleim: Including "Withdrawn" on what basis? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

based on the support of User:Thryduulf and User:Ajraddatz. --Pasleim (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ajraddatz said "Neutral... We don't need that type of ridiculous and worthless bureaucracy here, which somehow further separates admins from regular users. Anyway, on the other, I think that any help clearing out stale old proposals would be worthwhile, so neutral.". Thryduulf said ("Weak support with the exception that anyone may close their own proposals as unsucessful [sic] or withdrawn, and anyone may formally mark a proposal as withdrawn if it has been withdrawn but the status not set to such." , and you ignore opposition from User:Fralambert ("I don't see the problem of a closure of property proposal by a user. At worst, we can simply reopen it.", User:Vogone ("Oppose, it doesn't matter who closes such requests. Obvious false decisions can be reconsidered by a second person if needed."), User:ArthurPSmith (""withdrawn" should probably be entered only by the proposer though there are some cases where it seems obvious and anybody should be able to (for example the proposer adds a new replacement proposal on the same proposal page, but forgets to mark the first as withdrawn)") and me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC) @Vogone: as last ping was malformed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ajraddatz also said I think that marking properties as "ready" shouldn't count as closing, but everything else should be (done, not done, withdrawn). From what I know, that's how it's currently done.. Thryduulf added {{Support}} to done, not done and withdrawn but added {{Oppose}} to ready. The opposition by Fralambert and Vogone were generally about closing proposals and can't be taken into account when it comes to the question if setting the status to withdrawn counts as closing. The opposition by ArthurPSmith and you was taken into account. You were actually the only one giving a reason for the opposition: I think I have seen more people (often but not always novices) saying "I withdraw" in discussion, than setting the status flag in the proposal template. Anyone who then sets that flag is helping. However, as only around one out of 30 proposals get withdrawn, I don't think this is a strong engouh argument to change current practice. --Pasleim (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a change to current practice (I dispute your reading of the cited comments, but am out of time now). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I read each single comment on the page. If you dispute that it might be a good time for you now to read Wikidata:Assume good faith. --Pasleim (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Dispute your reading" means I dispute how you read them (i.e. what conclusions you drew), not that you read them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pasleim: Do you intend to respond? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of this language nuance. --Pasleim (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

For example this; note Tom Morris' comment before my edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pasleim: I don't think the "What counts as closing a discussion?" questions were well-posed, as I commented at the time. Including "withdrawn" in your list with regard to what property creators alone can do does not make sense, and I certainly disagree there was any consensus on including that. @Thryduulf: can you comment? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't mind anyone being able to close property creation requests, particularly for the withdrawn status. I just don't want a system of "second-class closers" to arise, with non-admins tagging their closures in particular some way. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith, Pigsonthewing, Ajraddatz, Pasleim: In my view, there was insufficient participation in the "what counts as closing a discussion" section for it to generate a consensus for or against anything. I believe that setting a status of "done", "not done" and "withdrawn" all count as closing a discussion. The first two should only be done by a property creator based on the consensus (or lack of) in the discussion. Only the proposer may withdraw a proposal, but anyone may set the status to "withdrawn" if the proposer has unambiguously withdrawn the proposal without doing do themselves. Not discussed in the linked page, and I suspect uncontroversial, but anyone may unwithdraw a proposal if they think it still has merit, effectively becoming the new proposer. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (resigning to fix ping: Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC))