Just a few thoughts here.
Firstly, we do not need a software prevention. If this minimum requirement gains consensus, any editor can un-transclude. That should be sufficient. Software prevention would be nice if at all possible, but should not scupper the proposal 09:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Secondly, I've suggested a low bar to increase the chance of the proposal being accepted. If I've gone too low or too high, let me know, but I've explained my reasonings on the page.
Thirdly, there's a way out. My phrasing "users fulfilling the criteria may nominate users who do not" ensures that an editor with over 2000 edits can nominate an editor with less. And we have WP:REQUESTNOM for that!
Would appreciate feedback before taking it to the community. WormTT · (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Providing this is done as a software fix then I'm happy to support it (I've tried and failed to get things very like this implemented in the past, but we need to do this and it is time to raise it again). But I would probably oppose if this was done on the basis of "anyone can close one of these as a snowfail/invalid nomination as I see tat as even more bitey than our current system. Taking Jimmy's example from Wikimania, it is really important that the Software doesn't allow people to do things that they are not allowed to do. ϢereSpielChequers 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WereSpielChequers said a long time ago that if we were to start with a relatively uncontroversial change first rather than go for a whole bunch of changes in one go, it might pave the way for further reform. I concur with that rationale, and it seems to have had some consensus at WT:RFA2011. However, for policy changes requiring software interventions, recent experience has shown that the devs now have a policy of refusing to implement software changes they personally don't like, even ones called for by an overwhelming consensus from heavily subscribed central RfAs. So let's not imagine for a moment that any changes, however moderate, will be easy. Neverthless,
- That said, I would support this, as our first proposal for change, on the basis of:
- Minimum of 2,000 edits excluding userspace, AWB and Huggle
- Minimum of six (6) consecutive months of activity since last beak of 30+ days.
- Any RfC would have to be extremely carefully worded. Again, experience shows that participants in discussions of this type, particularly the detractors, will try as hard as possible to misquote the syntax or put their own spin on the proposal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand WSC's reservations, and talking to the devs would be a good thing - if a software fix is possible, fine, if not it does not negate the rest of the proposal. I'd rather we got consensus that a minimum is the right way to go and then take that to the devs to implement a software fix. Having said that, is there any way to ask the devs if a software fix is possible or likely?
- Regarding the provisos, Kudpung - I do agree with them in principle, but I think it's over-complicating the proposal. It's very easy to see the 2000 mark, similarly the tenure since registration. A year ago, I agree that a much more carefully worded RfC would be required, but I think that especially with Jimbo's recent "we require facts, not emotive responses" argument, it may not be as disagreeable as you may think.
- I've asked Swarm to put out a shout for the masses, so we can see what the rest of the task force think. WormTT · (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]