okino wrote:

As I was asked to describe the consensus, thus:

Czech Wikinews have a small community. In April 2011 only three people named themselves as being an integral part of it (http://cs.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikizpr%C3%A1vy:V_redakci/02#Komunita_WZ).

From these three people agreed with the change, one objected.

Now in detail:

I made the proposal first in 2008 (http://cs.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikizpr%C3%A1vy:V_redakci/01#P.C5.99ejmenov.C3.A1n.C3.AD), because "portal" is more like a whole media (news) website, while "rubrika" is the thematic part of it (in English "section", or - in newspaper - "column"). One member there objected, one agreed. The discussion then ended (2-1).

In 2010 I repeated the proposal (http://cs.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikizpr%C3%A1vy:V_redakci/02#Dal.C5.A1.C3.AD_n.C3.A1m.C4.9Bty), where nobody objected and one another person agreed (2-0).

Overall the members of our tiny community voiced their opinions three times in favor and once more against (but he did not repeated his objection when I asked again...).

Thus I believe the community supported the move I now, after years of waiting, kindly ask to be done.

Thanks a lot.

I don't consider 2:1 nor 2:0 (it would have been 2:1 if there were new arguments, but it doesn't make a sense to repeat things which have been said endlessly) as a consensus, especially when there were significant serious objections.

Also, in fact, there are only two high active people who unfortunately can't find a same path for some things and the rest are occassional contributors.

"Portál" namespace name has been decided by much wider consensus in past, when Czech Wikinews were starting and there was signifcantly bigger number of active contributors.

Unless there is a wider community and significant consensus (not just a majority by of one vote), I would strongly suggest to stick to the current status, which has much bigger consensus base, because it can simply happen, that there will be another poll to rename back with again 2:1 or any other tight result and namespace will be renamed there and back, there and back, which obviously does not make a sense.

okino wrote:

I am sorry to revert edit by Danny B., as I disagree with it. As to my honest knowledge he misinterprets the discussion, but anyway he decided the case closing this bug in the discussion, in which he has a minority view, which I see quite a conflict of interest. So please anyone try to evaluate the presented evidence, I will fully respect it.

Now regarding the arguments Danny writes. It is not 2:1 nor 2:0, it is 3:1 overall. There were a few objections by Danny (http://cs.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikizpr%C3%A1vy:V_redakci&diff=4354&oldid=4353), which I tried to discuss and falsify (http://cs.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikizpr%C3%A1vy:V_redakci&diff=4356&oldid=4354) and Danny himself has not ever reply (for full archive see the 2008 discussion link - there is simply no reply, nor later in 2010). He simply added his objections and then stopped discussing, and while two more people added their support to my proposal later, he only says his once mentioned arguments are the ultimate reason not to make the move. I do not believe this is the way how to block a consensus.

It is hard to evaluate who are the high active people (Danny probably meaning me and himself). Aktron was a co-founder of the project and he wrote hundreds of articles, Tchoř is a full-rights undisputed admin doing a lot of maintenance work. Majority of Danny's work is also of technical support and maintenance with the exception of about two weeks at the beginning of this year.

There is no evidence about "much wider consensus" in past. There is no evidence that in that times there was any proposal to name it rubrika and the proposal was refused by that time's consensus.

I do not believe in any future continuously repeated votes about the name. And if possibly there are, we can just simply follow the Danny's steps of the past few years - we can rename it now and then, when the opposite consensus suddenly emerges, we can wait for some time to see, whether it is long-time consensus to rename it back. This is clearly a two-year (2008-2010, now we have 2012) consensus, where the (clear) majority of a (small) community agreed.

What I want to add more, is that Danny's objections here (about the so called "much wider consensus", about the size of community or about the risk of future votes) were never posted to Wikinews community, which I find rather unfair that he suddenly posts them here [and immediately closes the bug...].

I believe the consensus on cs.Wikinews is a reality (or at least it definitely was between 2008 and 2010). Yes, there is a risk that when tens of new contributors suddenly come, they may want to rename it back (which is not probable, as the name "rubrika" is terminologically correct). While the consensus is a present reality, the other thing is just a future risk. Thanks for careful evaluation of what is more important, I promise I will learn from that.

There is a common practise, that if there is a significant dispute, that bugs are closed with LATER. That does not mean, the bug is closed as rejected (that would be WONTFIX then), but that it will be taken into consideration somewhen in future, when it's more straight path to its solution.

okino wrote:

On Czech Wikinews, there has been absolutely no dispute on this topic since October 2008. The dispute suddenly emerged here, outside the Czech Wikinews community. And because Danny made no attempt to start any new discussion back on Czech Wikinews, I think he wants to solve the problem here, as do I, asking any system administrator to answer - or by renaming the namespace, or by delaying the decision with hints how to solve all the case on the side of Czech Wikinews and in which form to bring the Czech Wikinews decision here if both the previous decisions are insufficient.

And one remark regarding the original "wider consensus", just a citation from the 2008 discussion, written by Aktron, the Czech Wikinews co-founder: "I support renaming from Portal to Rubrika as it is more fitting. With the name portal I was not satisfied first and I am not sure, how it originally got to Wikinews." As Aktron was one of the really key persons in founding Wikinews and he was involved in all processes, reading him that he did not know anything about that it looks like there was no real discussion about how to name the namespace and thus there was no consensus. It was probably simply set up by Danny, as translated from English Wikinews or adopted from Czech Wikipedia after no discussion. Which was okay then, but later we had a new decision, which shall be respected.

okino wrote:

While Danny mentioned "a significant dispute" here, he did not do anything to reopen the disputation in Wikinews. I did it myself then and finally Danny started to discuss...

Thus I inform all the admins that we have now the ongoing discussion on cs Wikinews at http://cs.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikizpr%C3%A1vy:V_redakci#Rubriky_pot.C5.99et.C3.AD .

Someone will certainly add here some interim or final conclusions.

With regards...

Please reopen this bug if there is consensus to make the changes

okino wrote:

Dear admins,

as there was no discussion for about three weeks in Czech Wikinews, I copy the conclusions, that I already (without any objections or reactions for almost two weeks now) presented at http://cs.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikizpr%C3%A1vy:V_redakci&diff=23179&oldid=23118 . I try to translate it to English language here:

• The proposal is supported in the new discussion by four people against two. Including discussions in history (in 2008 and 2010), the score is five against two. Among the people that have been more or less regular contributors to the Wikinews, the score is three to two. Among contributors, that named themselves members of the community, the score is two to one. The pro- people include admin Tchor, who does not "vote" in favor of the proposal, but he says "I don't mind the proposal" and he says the proposal is based on a better known term Rubrika than the formal one Portál.

• The pro- arguments were presented by Okino (me), Krvesaj and Tchor, the con- arguments were presented only by Danny B. The others just voiced their support or disapproval.

• Danny B. did not go on in the discussion again for almost three weeks, nor by disproving the pro- arguments, neither by disproving the answers to his questions. He even has not answered the questions that had been put to him.

Based on this summary, I believe the discussion has ended with two possible interpretations: Or it voiced consensual support for the proposal (on Czech language projects, when it is impossible to find a unity, ), or it was simply blocked by Danny B.'s silence.

Danny B. also proposed a more complicated change (adding not only Rubrika, but also more namespaces), but he has not followed the discussion, whether more namespaces are anyhow needed. Thus I believe his proposal is not relevant, I just add it here for the full information and adding that in fact Danny was also ready to agree with adding the Rubrika namespace. I believe there is a space for his proposal, if he wants to discuss it himself, but I also believe further activity should start from him...

Now I ask You, admins, to kindly say the final word and possibly make the changes proposed above. Thanks.

In fact the counts above are misinterpreted and take into account only selected opinions and voices and constantly ignore certain important arguments.

Being extremely ivolved in the discussion causes indisputable bias, so closing of the discussion should be done by somebody not involved or at least not involved that extremely as Okino is, not even talking about his professional bias. From the same reason I did not close the discussion myself, although I do not consider myself biased, but because I wanted to prevent similar argument against my closing.

On the other hand I see the results of the discussion quite opposite way anyway.

I also don't think it makes a sense to have a discussion immediately again (or consider this immediate discussion as relevant), it should wait some significant time period (i.e. half a year) before the new round will be started because it needs some new people involved in the discussion (but not fished voices) to bring new perspectives and until then it does not make a sense to spin round and round on the same arguments and within the same group of people. (Hopefully there will be more new users to set up the real community who will stay longer than now, when they start to edit and after being constantly corrected and commented by one active member, they get disgusted and leave or at least lower down their activity to sporadic contributions. Otherwise it probably doesn't even make a sense to continue with the wiki as a separate project and it should be returned back to Incubator.

okino wrote:

What arguments were ignored?

What opinions were not taken in account?

What is wrong about my personal professional bias (in fact - not a professional bias, but a professional education and experience...)?

Where are the objections to my proposal of closure - from You or from anyone?

What is wrong with anyone closing the discussion, when You do not want to discuss Yourself?

Please, admins, here You can see, that Danny simply blocks the discussion for four years - and now he wants to wait for half a year more!

In fact, correcting and commenting other edits is the way how to make a wiki. Danny has never objected to it on Czech Wikinews and I understand bringing it here now as a pure slander and the threat to move Wikinews back to Incubator is nothing more than a blackmailing!

I am really sorry, but I ask You, dear admins, to decide. I will respect any of Your decision, but please consider all the four-year-long process of pressure to Danny to discuss and his silence - for example the fact, that he was discussing here more then on Wikinews(!). If You think his behavior is correct and he has the full right to block the proposal and a small, however a majority of our small community with this manner, please refuse the proposal. If You agree that Danny had a lot of opportunities to discuss the proposal, but he withdrew from the discussion himself at least two times, please, follow the agreement of five people in our wiki and approve the proposal.

Thanks a lot.

Sigh... :-/

a) There is no four-years-long discussion. There have been two separate discussions in past and one recently. None of them ended up with consensus. Particularly (and paradoxically) because of small community.

b) Please do not misinterpret the reality. There is no agreement of five people. It is not possible to count opinions from years old previous discussions and add them to current opinions, or if you want to count them, then you would have to count also all those who were for other solutions, which would again prove no gained consensus. It is also not possible to count "I don't mind either way" opinions as a support for one single solution only. That's either for all or for none. Not selectively for one only.

c) I have to strictly reject the last paragraph as strongly manipulative when trying to put it in single-person perspective. It is all about consensus which I'm trying to defend as an important wiki principle and consensus has not been reached. The last discussion/vote was 3:2(+1 who wouldn't mind either possibility) and that is not a consensus, especially when 3 out of 5 "votes" were not after discussion but after first single-side subjective statement thus couldn't objectively compare.

d) I would also like to kindly ask you to try to step back for a bit and think about proposed compromise solution which would satisfy all existing opinions. That may lead to gaining of consensus. Thank you.

PS: Bugzilla is not intended for discussion, please try to respect it. I don't want to spam Bugzilla by discussion here, this should be solved on Czech Wikinews Village pump with significant consensus. Thank you for cooperation.

okino wrote:

Regarding the "do not mind" vote - Tchor (as well as Danny B.) could have read my proposal of summary where I evaluated the vote as "pro-vote" (also in relation to Tchor's pro-vote in 2010, where he clearly said it is a "good idea") on Wikinews and he has not commented it (he was present at Wikinews between publishing the proposed summary and entering it here).

And more, presenting the proposed summary first to Wikinews for discussion and objections was used by me as a tool to avoid being accused of misinterpretation, and nobody has criticized or commented the proposed summary or the proposed procedure there for 11 days, which I believe is enough for what looks as quite a hot discussion. After 21 days of Danny's silence on Wikinews, he entered his critique in just two hours here.

I do not want to discuss here any more (as I describe again and again, I have really tried hard to discuss the thing several times on Wikinews, but usually it went on without continuous discussion, sometimes even without any discussion from Danny, who simply stayed silent immediately or after just a few comments. It is really hard to solve the thing on Wikinews, when Danny does not communicate...), but I just want to make this clear.

Thanks for understanding and for evaluation.

If I read about "serious objection" it links me to this: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PeterSymonds&diff=3575011&oldid=3574073

There Danny B. also denied community consensus (4:1) manipulating steward that there are "objections" and that 2 users doesn't represent community so ratio is 2:1 (1 not respected vote was from a user who had more than 2 month of editing and 30 edits ~ this is normally a respected user on bigger projects). So we were pushed to repeat voting on cs.wv and it is still ongoing.

okino wrote:

No interest of the remaining community, NS portal suppressed, no need for change more.

Thanks all.

Okino.