Talk:Response testing/WMF Projects/Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion

Procedure for this resource page
I have established a minimal guideline for the conduct of this project, shown on the resource page. If anyone considers the material I established to be harmful, please fix it. If it is acceptable but could be improved, and you think the improvement obvious, go ahead and improve it. If you expect "improvement" to be controversial, I request but cannot demand that changes be discussed first. Thanks for your care with this resource, studies similar to this have created controversy and disruption in the past, and it is my hope to avoid that, or at least to ensure that no legitimate objection remains without having been addressed and resolved by consensus. There is no rush, please be patient with other participants. --Abd 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for this resource
Please feel free to propose amendments to these guidelines, as threaded discussion below the guideline and acceptance signatures. No guideline is purely binding here, but a guideline established by consensus may prevent disruption in the future, setting a default standard that participants are ordinarily expected to follow. Signing individual guidelines is voluntary, but is intended to reassure those who might possibly object to this process that participants are committed to fairness and accuracy, not blame and misrepresentation. --Abd 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not out editors
Do not out other editors, i.e., reveal their real-world identity, without an established and agreed-upon necessity for it, and without confidence and probably evidence that the Wikiversity community and agents of the WikiMedia Foundation will approve of it. Because discussing this can involve outing the editor, do not discuss outing, on-wiki, in any way that will reveal real-world identity, or point to a resource (presumably outside the WMF universe) that does. Real-world identity should not generally matter for the purposes of this study, and there might be studies where it would be important, but these guidelines cover only this particular project.
 * Accept. --Abd 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Describe, do not judge
Avoid judging the actions of editors in the evidence-gathering phase of this project, and this project should not move beyond that phase without consensus to do so, and ample time for objection. In the evidence-gathering phase, diffs and permanent version links will be collected and arranged to facilitate study of the subject testing project and response to it, and neutral summaries created to make learning about the incident easier.
 * Accept. --Abd 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries are always neutral evidence
An edit summary from an original edit is always allowed as part of a "neutral summary." Caution should be used in adding summarization beyond that, such original research or synthesis should enjoy maximum consensus. If an editor has retracted a statement made in an edit or in a summary, that should be cited as well.
 * Accept. --Abd 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Avoid cherry-picking
Collect evidence using stated criteria or categories such as "All edits by Editor X linking to the testing project or referring to it." Then be complete within the criteria provided (but participants will naturally take time to complete collection).
 * Accept. --Abd 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Pick the rest of the cherries
If you believe that evidence has been cherry-picked, pick the rest of the cherries, i.e., complete the evidence, broadening categories as needed, but without making categories overbroad; i.e., add a new category if broadening the original evidence category would expand it so much that the picture is muddied. As an example of over-broadening, if the category mentioned above were expanded to "All edits by Editor X during the project period," it could muddy the picture, unless there were very few other edits. Please do not accuse editors of cherry-picking; people will naturally bring up evidence they think important, but our task as a working group will be to balance and complete this.
 * Accept. --Abd 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep the resource page clean
The resource page itself should enjoy continued consensus, with ample time for objection before material is placed on it. Even after discussion, material may be removed from the page if new objection is raised, to allow discussion. Exceptions to this should be explicitly confirmed by consensus, probably by consensus in a broader forum should consensus here not be complete.
 * Accept. --Abd 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just "violated" this, because I'd collected links here to pages on Wikipedia, then decided to go ahead and place it on the resource page. However, if anyone thinks that what I did was controversial and should be discussed first, please revert. Thanks. --Abd 02:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

present and correct
Just a quick note to say that I do intend to begin work here before too long :-) - I'm a wee bit busy at the mo, so my pace will be glacial, as usual - my only feedback on the above in terms of guidelines, is that I'm a big advocate of what I view as the 'wiki way' which is to be bold, follow your nose, listen to concerns, de-escalate at all times, assume good faith, and you'll be alright. Perhaps I should give greater profile to my longstanding committment to stop anything that I'm up to for a chat if anyone wants one (you bring the biscuits, I'll make tea :-) cheers, Privatemusings 06:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The biscuits are in the oven. As to the wiki way, yes. --Abd 14:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)