Should the feedback response guidelines be formally adopted as a Wikipedia guideline? 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

• Support: After months of drafting and redrafting I believe that the draft guidelines cover the topic in a way which is agreeable to the majority of users. And that they fully cover the use of the tool, whilst still allowing users to use their discretion wherever possible. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support – it clearly sets out when to action feedback (hide, flag as abuse or feature), what not to do, and the consequences of abusing the relevant tools. Probably worth publicising this discussion somewhere? —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, it all seems quite rational, sensible, logical, and useful. :) Good job, — Cirt (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support As with any guideline, there are likely to be tweaks in the future, but I think this is ready to be a guideline. We really should have at least something of guideline level for actions that are permission based. The current version seems good to me. Monty₈₄₅ 17:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. There may be a need to revise a tad in the future, but it seems wise to adopt this as an actual guideline. dci | TALK 22:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Broadly support but slightly concerned that this might be bureaucracy creep. That is, I don't find anything particularly problematic about the guidelines but I think it might be a case of instruction creep/bureaucracy creep. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  How do you come to that conclusion? What smells of creep to you? There aren't other guidelines addressing the when you should use the feedback tool (there are, of course, hows quite abundant).--Izno (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Simple. I have a brain. When someone comes and posts "HURR DURR I ATE A DICK" on the comments page, I don't need to read a guideline to know that it needs to be hidden. I'd rather hope that anybody else who has the ability to hide feedback would do likewise. That said, having a policy won't do any harm. That's why I'm supporting rather than opposing it. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The same could be said of rollback, couldn't it? Yet we have a rather strict rule that rollback is used only to revert clear and unambiguous vandalism. Would you say that rule also is cruft? That the documentation of that rule is cruft? If only the latter, how would you ensure that people follow the (then) unwritten rule? (I'm exploring here, because if you would note the cruftiness, someone may oppose due to that.) --Izno (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As I said, I don't see any particular problem with it. I just think that it might be a case of premature optimization. I'm slightly unclear on whether we expect people to read this before they start hiding "MY FRIEND JIMMY IN HISTORY CLASS IS GAY" and similar vandalism-esque comments on feedback pages. Or will this only be used so we can remove someone's reviewer privileges if they consistently ignore these guidelines? (I guess with the IAR exception, that's probably not going to happen.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  On the former, we don't. However, we should be able to point to some place, when attempting to correct their action, that says "the community has these standards in place. Please consider them the next time you use the hide button". I don't see it as likely that privileges will be removed either, especially given H8. But there may be egregious instances where monitors are repeatedly in the wrong with these guidelines, and yes, I can see removal being an appropriate action (just as with rollback or another permission). I wouldn't describe it as premature optimization but as preparing for a worst case scenario. Going into the process by which a person has a tool and then that tool is removed is probably outside the scope of this page, as the community should decide that (RFCU, ANI, etc.). Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Same way we do in any other circumstance. Admin decides to remove tools, if there's any disagreement with the admin action, it goes to ANI. There are problems with such a process, but far fewer problems than having an RfC/U would present. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Neutral. It's a bit self-contradictory and the only thing I would've needed it for -- when to flag as abuse -- is a bit unclear. At the same time, I don't oppose because it's not worse than nothing.

It's difficult to understand as a regular editor when I'm supposed to mark comments as abuse and when I'm supposed to mark them as unhelpful. Under the 'mark as unhelpful' section, it says you should do that for "ksnknck" because "it does not contribute to the development of the article." But under "hiding feedback," number H3 is gives the example of "aksnksckdjdvfpqsk" for "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project." Because it says to mark it as abuse when "it may meet the criteria for hiding," I guess the instruction is to mark gibberish feedback as abuse. But it's definitely not clear.

A related "problem" is what to do with non-actionable feedback like "good" or "funtastic!" It's not really feedback that would contribute to the development of the article; it's somewhat akin to "blank feedback." But I can't say I'm comfortable with flagging such comments under H6.

I think that these two situations probably encompass the overwhelming majority of instances when normal editors wonder whether it's appropriate to flag feedback as abuse, so I suggest adding them as examples to the flag as abuse section. I'd support such a guideline. AgnosticAphid talk 00:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding marking as abuse and marking as unhelpful - most of the time you can do both and are perfectly free to do both. All feedback like "ksnknck" should be hidden uner H3, but can also be marked as unhelpful (and flagged as abuse).

The reason there aren't any examples in the flag as abuse section is that it would just be a duplicate of the hiding section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The last paragraph in resolving covers what to do with feedback such as "good" or "funtastic!".

Fair enough. I still think it's confusing, though. Maybe it would help to add to the flag as abuse part something like "don't flag it if you could resolve it as non-actionable instead," and maybe it would help to the mark as unhelpful part something like "don't forget you can flag it as abusive, too!" YMMV.AgnosticAphid talk 18:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. I had some concerns (see the discussion below), but they've been solved to my satisfaction. I think it would be a net benefit to make this a guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Changed to Oppose, because of the revert that has been noted in the discussion section below. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  OK, I'm changing back to Support again. It looks like we now have a stable version with the issues that had concerned me now corrected very nicely. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support All (albeit minor) concerns rectified. Sounds like a natural next step. —Theopolisme 14:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. A guideline that includes IAR as a criterion? How could I say no?! But, in all seriousness, looks like a very good starting point, and I appreciate that no one has tried to use this to solve problems that don't yet exist... sort of a case of "cross that bridge when we come to it, but be sure that there actually is a bridge to cross." — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong oppose as written. The "Conflict of Interest", "Wheel Warring", "User warnings", and "Oversight" sections are redundant to existing policy and serve only to fill white space. If the actual policies change, I don't want to see Wikilawyers insisting on another consensus to change this one. Leave the related policies where they are, or add to them if needed.--v/r - TP 02:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see where you are coming from however the COI section (as far as I've seen doesn't already exist at WP:COI and it is applied differently with this tool and should be applied differently. Regarding wheel warring this applies differently becuase it is being applied to users who are not admins - I've removed the bit which applies WP:WHEEL to everyone and just explained it. Once again this applies differently to other places on Wikipedia (plus I imagine there would be a number of complaints from users if we wanted to add a section to WP:Administrators about users without the bit. In these guidelines the user warnings section exists only to make users aware that there are user warning templates available (as the thing on WP:Vandalism does), it's not saying that they must or must not be used. I agree with the Oversight section however it just exists here to show how it applies to the tool, so whilst I can see where you're coming from the examples are there to help monitors decide what to request oversight for and what to hide. In any case the first paragraph says that the tool is subject to the Oversight policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you need to change those policies to include those parts. Information about what wheeling is should not exist in three or four different policies. Information about COIs shouldn't either. Besides, those policies are vague enough to cover these instances. The cases where non-admins can be wheeling on the feedback tool, just adapt the WP:WHEEL policy to cover that.--v/r - TP 02:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't think of another place that COIs like this would occur, and it isn't really the intended coverage of WP:COI which is about external COIs. I agree to an extent with the wheel warring, however then we are introducing non-admins into Wikipedia:Administrators and making them subject to different rules (that is the sanctions are different) as admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• Note; we're going to be redesigning the feedback page interface somewhat, which may necessitate some cosmetic redrafting. If you were at office hours, you've seen it - if not, I'll drop a link here tomorrow :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I saw the listing on WP:CENT, and I have some questions before I can really decide whether or not I think this page should be made a guideline.
  • Have there actually been any problems with marking feedback as "resolved"? In other words, has this really been a problem?
  • Historically, WP:WHEEL has been applied to administrators. Are we creating new territory here, by extending it to rollbackers and reviewers ("monitors")? Wouldn't this new territory create some new problems?
• --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  In response to the WP:WHEEL point, the purpose was simply to ensure that admins and non-admins warring with the tools on AFT would be treated in the same way. In my opinion it is neither fair nor unfair to either group. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 09:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What is your concern on the resolved points?

  The intent is to prevent warring with the tool, not necessarily to make it subject to the precise same sanctions as WHEEL. However, rollbackers and reviewers (and all other classes) can have those classes removed. Is there a more appropriate link in your mind? --Izno (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The reason I asked about whether there has actually been a problem with marking things "resolved" basically comes down to instruction creep. If there isn't really a problem, we might not need to provide a guideline about that. But that's not a big deal.

  The issue I see with WHEEL could be more significant. ArbCom is very serious about desysoping admins who wheel war, even once, and admins generally know that and take it seriously themselves. On the other hand, we have vast numbers of reviewers and rollbackers who have never gone through anything remotely resembling an RfA. I'm pretty sure it would be just a matter of time before someone who just thought they were reverting something will be shocked to find themselves at ANI. There has been a lot of discussion prior to reimplementing Pending Changes, about whether everyone with the reviewer tool really is qualified to have it, or even what those qualifications ought to be. Implementing this page as a guideline might abruptly put a lot of reviewers in a position they never knew they were in. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think the point of talking about when we should or shouldn't mark things resolved is that we have gotten a number of questions of when it's appropriate, so if you call those problems, then yes, we've had problems. (See the archive.) We've tried to give some guidance on the point due to the feedback we've gotten here.

  I agree that the link to WHEEL is an issue. When I asked about "a more appropriate link", I was looking for some input on the actual link to an appropriate page, because while I recognize that WHEEL may not be the best place to link, it is also true that we don't want users to be back-and-forth quibbling over feedback, just like we don't want edit wars, move wars, or wheel wars. --Izno (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That answers (resolves!) my question about "resolved". As an alternative to WHEEL, how about simply WP:EW? That would make that problem go away, as I see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Does this work? --Izno (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I have reverted for the time being, in no small part because this is a major change to a proposal on which we are actively publicising, and also because at least three people have cited the principles of WP:WHEEL as being appropriate in the archives. The question of whether we should actually link to WP:WHEEL is a valid one. But in the absence of a link to it, the page should outline the circumstances under which admins and non-admins misusing the tool should be dealt with. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 06:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Hmm. I'll think. --Izno (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I still think we should add a little to the hiding criteria. Maybe add total non sequitirs, for instance? They're hardly any different from blank submission. I mean, clearly they're more or less covered under H8, or even, sometimes, H2 or H3, but I can't see a time when stuff like this or this would ever be remotely useful. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You have yet to respond to the comments above. Would you like to do so? --Izno (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree with Calanecc's most recent comment there, especially in that the guidelines should remain fairly loose for now. The reason that I posted this in this thread, and not there, is that I now totally see the reason to not be overly specific with certain parts. Still, in the spirit of some of Tom Morris's comments above, I think there are some types of comments that any passing user checking the feedback on a page they've been working on, and noticing the "Hide" button that they've gotten by virtue of being a rollbacker or reviewer, might hide, but which we still don't fully cover in the criteria. My point is simply that the criteria, as written, are a bit too tightly worded, and then just let everything else full under a catch-all of "IAR." So why not loosen up a few of the individual criteria, to allow monitors greater discretion within individual criteria, as opposed to fairly limited discretion within each criterion, followed by a broad license to do whatever you want. (Not that I think we should get rid of H8. Just that we should be a bit less dependent on it, perhaps.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I see what you mean, but I think the only criterion this might relate to is H3. And this is meant to be a little harder especially given the examples there. But I'll make the change I suggested in the above section now, I don't think it changes that much so shouldn't be too much of an issue for the RFC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think that works. Thanks! On everything else, I agree that it's best to wait before making any changes. Voting in support. Sorry if it sounded like I was nagging to get my suggestion implemented. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - This is a defective survey — there is no link to the "Feedback Response Guidelines" provided. Therefore, the only people able to meaningfully participate are those who are already cognizant of these guidelines and thus predisposed to support their elevation to project guideline status. Provide a link. Start over. Carrite (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Go the the project page this talk page belongs too? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• As in Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I just put a piped link in at WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, since that's where I imagine any confusion might be coming from. I suppose one might read WT:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines as "a subpage of the talk page on Article Feedback," instead of as "the talk page of a subpage of WP:Article Feedback. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just another thought. Like with the revdel criteria, might it be a good idea to also say something about hiding submissions pending Oversighter review? It could either be a ninth hiding criterion, or a note at the end of the "Hiding and unhiding" section... something along the lines of "Monitors should hide any submissions that they themselves request Oversight on, as a precaution until an Oversighter can review them. Monitors should also hide any submissions they find that are pending oversight, unless the request is clearly in bad faith. Many submissions for which Oversight has been declined may also still warrant hiding under other criteria." — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Submissions for which Oversight is requested are automatically hidden, so I don't see a need to include it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ahh. I was unaware. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Maybe I missed it, but did we ever have an RfC saying that we wanted the AFTv5 tool? To me that seems like a logical step before we can agree on guidelines. Legoktm (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I would say that as long as the tool is active, we should have guidelines for dealing with it. Making this a guideline would not be an endorsement of AFTv5, if for what ever reason AFTv5 goes away, this would just become historical for the time period it was active. Monty₈₄₅ 02:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]