User:Solstag/Portuguese Wikipedia Qualitative Researcher/Test

Choose what you think is the most active community discussion page in Portuguese Wikipedia (this may or may not be a Village Pump). Please provide a link to the page and one sentence about why you chose it. Read through the discussions that have happened there in the past month, and provide a brief summary (think bullet points) of the types of discussions you see there, focusing on the following:

new editors, the same 3 people over and over?)
 * Who is doing most of the talking? (Administrators, veteran editors,
 * What are the main topics of discussion?
 * What is the tone of these discussions? (aggressive, polite, neutral, etc)

Deadline: Thursday 9 a.m. PST. We expect that this task should take you just a couple of hours, so please be concise.

Choosing the page

 * 1) Checked recent changes for frequent "Wikipédia" domain changes, plus discussions at the various Esplanadas (generic, proposals and announcements "Village Pumps").
 * 2) Shortlisted most active pages to:
 * 3) * w:pt:Wikipédia:Contato/Fale_com_a_Wikipédia, external contact page
 * 4) * w:pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Pedidos_de_bloqueio, page for user blocking requests
 * 5) * w:pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral, general discussion Village Pump
 * 6) * w:pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/propostas, proposal discussion Village Pump
 * 7) Picked w:pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/propostas, because of its higher number of edits and participants relative to w:pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral, and because both w:pt:Wikipédia:Contato/Fale_com_a_Wikipédia and w:pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Pedidos_de_bloqueio are often more issue tracking than discussion pages.
 * 8) We will analyze this version of the page, including the first discussion topic even though it started over a month ago, since there are later replies.

Discussion topics
The chosen page is devoted to proposing and deliberating about changes to Wikipédia policies, and contains 28 discussion topics with a total of 13 subtopics. The page itself is composed of many different pages put together by inclusion, as that makes it easier for the community to track and organize around each proposal.

We will first report about participation and mood on each topic independently, and then summarize our findings.

Some definitions: messages are short if under 200 characters, long if over 2000 characters, medium otherwise; participants are admin if administrators, veteran if they hold voting rights, new otherwise; participants are most present when they clearly stand out in the number of interventions relative to the size of the conversation, we leave this quantitatively undefined;

For this test, except for the first topic as an example of how we would expect the quantitative team to assist us, we don't actually fill in the quantitative data on Messages and Participants, but we include those items everywhere as we understand the qualitative analysis presented is significantly less valuable to the reader without them.

Logo da Wikipédia dos 700.000 artigos

 * Theme: changing the logo to celebrate 700.000 articles
 * Messages: 0 long, 2 medium, 5 short
 * Participants: 0 admin, 6 veteran, 0 new
 * Most present: none, but a veteran started the discussion.
 * Tone: all polite
 * Long story short: Quick discussion, proposal was soon dismissed.

Impedir que IPs criem artigos

 * Theme: whether unregistered users should be allowed to create articles; later, also whether to restrict unregistered edits outside the article namespace
 * Messages: X long, X medium, X short (~150 total)
 * Participants: X admin, X veteran, X new (~20 total, 1 unregistered)
 * Most present: a veteran started the discussion, some administrators soon joined, as did other veterans, but a group of 1 administrators and 3 veterans were the most vocal at first; as the topic moved, that proportion remained constant, though the individuals changed; one individual administrator was present throughout most of the debate; very few newbies participated, if any, and only one seemingly veteran unregistered user.
 * Tone: mostly polite, with moments of tension and accusation; a slight risk of tension in the beginning when people were dismissing the very merit of raising the issue, but that was evaded; some tension building up when a subtopic emerged comparing one position to a pessimistic literary figure, but the level of civility remained stable; more tension did build up when the discussion became really large and some confusion ensued, as a few veterans started replying to side issues as if they were the main proposal, which led to that same user repeating the literary comparison;
 * Long story short: some administrators showed up to challenge the need to discuss this issue again; some veterans contested that view, and participants soon moved to arguments based on statistics, reasoning, personal experience and wiki principles, plus comparison to other wikis; alternative tools were discussed to deal with the problems arising from unregistered page creation, such as filters; a different proposal also emerged, to restrict unregistered edits - not only new pages - outside the article namespace, but clear problems with this were raised and most vocal veterans changed sides along this discussion; by the end, there was a lot of general discussion on the roles of unregistered users on Wikipédia, and an apparent disposition to try flagged revisions once it starts rolling out again; one last proposal emerged, regarding the policy for deleting new articles, but it was moved into another topic.

Eleições para senador e governador no Brasil

 * Theme: wheter to break articles about state elections in two
 * Messages: 0 long, 0 medium, 2 short
 * Participants: 0 admin, 2 veteran, 0 new
 * Most present: none, but a veteran started the discussion.
 * Tone: all polite.
 * Long story short: participants disagreed, it was suggested to simply improve the existing page, no explicit decision was made.

Permitir atribuição local do estatuto de confirmado

 * Theme: wheter to have local attribution of confirmed status
 * Messages: 0 long, 1 medium, 10 short
 * Participants: X admin, X veteran, X new (~10 total, 1 unregistered)
 * Most present: none, but an administrator started the discussion.
 * Tone: all polite.
 * Long story short: confirmed status, which waives the captcha, was only assigned automatically or by a request to a steward; all agreed that local administrators should be allowed to give users that status; a bug report was filled by the administrator who started the discussion.

Retirada do Anexo bom

 * Theme: whether to discard the standard for a good annex
 * Messages: 0 long, 3 medium, 2 short
 * Participants: 2 admin, 2 veteran, 0 new
 * Most present: none, but a veteran started the discussion.
 * Tone: all polite.
 * Long story short: the need for a standard of a good annex, in addition to that of a featured annex, was questioned; reasons for and against were presented by different users, but the discussion was dropped before any consensual decision.

Proposta sobre a deleção de novos artigos por ER / ESR
Essa proposta é um desdobramento da discussão sobre a proibição de páginas criadas por IPs. A proposta consitiu na criação de um link nas páginas eliminadas por ER ou ESR para que o novo editor possa questionar sobre a eliminação. Participaram 4 administradores e 8 usuários experientes. O tom foi polido e houve um único argumento contrário dizendo que isso já está escrito no aviso de eliminação.

Mudar propósito padrão do URC
Proposta para a flexibilização do URC. 3 usuários experientes participaram em 4 mensagens e a discussão foi num tom polido. A disucssão tende a negar a proposta.

Filtro de Spam
Discussão sobre o bloqueio ao youtube pelo filtro de spam. 3 usuários experientes em 3 mensagens polidas. Indicaram que o proponente fizesse a solicitação no meta.

Acabar de vez com a guerra das referências (padronização de referências)
Sugestão para a padronização na utilização de referências. 14 usuários experientes, 1 administrador em 41 mensagens. A discussão se dividiu em 3 partes, o tom foi neutro. O proponente reformulou a proposta 2 vezes conforme surgiam divergências. Ao final não houve um consenso e o tom ficou agressivo entre o proponente e um usuário experiente.

Reformulação da proposta
Continuação de "Acabar de vez com a guerra das referências (padronização de referências)"

Decisão final
Continuação de "Acabar de vez com a guerra das referências (padronização de referências)"

Notas
Continuação de "Acabar de vez com a guerra das referências (padronização de referências)"

Categoria de páginas para eliminação rápida
Sugestão de alteração de nomenclatura. 3 usuários experientes, 1 administrador, 4 mensagens em tom neutro. Todos concordaram com a proposta.

Liberalizar a página principal
Sugestão de abertura das adições na página principal. 3 usuários experientes, 3 mensagens. Um usuário colocou em tom agressivo a diferença entre a wikiédia e o wikinews.

Traduzir artigos é uma boa prática?
Proposta para desistimular as traduções de artigos. 4 usuários experientes, 1 administrador e 1 usuários novato (pela qualidade da argumentação na proposta deve se tratar de um sock puppet). 9 mensagens em tom neutro. O proponente reviu seu posicionamento no final.

Fotos para os artigos das cidades
Proposta para aumentar o número de imagens de cidade. 2 usuários experientes e 2 administradores. Discussão em tom polido com 8 mensagens. Ficou a impressão de estimular a postagem de imagens de cidades nos moldes do Wiki Loves Monuments.

Páginas curtas
Proposta para retirar as páginas em desambiguação das páginas curtas. 7 usuários experientes em 9 mensagens de tom polido. Todos concordaram com a proposta, pois facilitará o trabalho de quem melhora artigos curtos.

Textos de uso restrito
Proposta de alteração do texto sobre Uso Restrito de Conteúdo. 4 usuários experientes e 1 administrador em 12 mensagens. A discussão ocorreu em tom neutro com a posição contrária por parte do adminsitrador.

Voto qualificado em PE
Discussão sobre critérios para validar a justificativa em votos de PE. ~50 comentários em tom neutro. ~10 usários e 1 administrador. O proponente queria estabelecer critérios objetivos para a justficativa de votos de. Os votos de PE devem obrigatoriamente ser justificados, caso constrário, são anulados. As argumentações de um grupo de usuários (mais) experientes vai no sentido de manter certa subjetividade nesse processo, demandando a análise e reflexão do votante e dificultando o automatismo do voto quantitativo.

Critérios de notoriedade para estúdios e emissoras
Definição de critérios de notoriedade. 6 usuários experientes em 10 mensagens de tom neutro. Os critérios foram aceitos.

Critérios de notoriedade para programas de televisão
Definição de critérios de notoriedade. 5 usuários experientes e 2 adminsitradores em 9 mensagens de tom neutro. Os critérios novos devem ser aceitos com a manutenção dos antigos.

Impugnação de ESR
Alteração do texto de ESR. 8 usuários experientes e 2 administradores em 28 postagens em tom neutro. Um administrador apresenta um caso sobre uma atitude antiga do proponente que se relaciona com a proposta. Isso indica que a proposta serve para provar o ponto de vista do proponente e/ou solucionar um problema que ele enfrentou. O problema consiste na impugnação de um pedido de ESR e tranformação em PE. O proponente pretende clarificar os critérios.

Argumentos pertinentes e a evitar em discussões de eliminação

 * Theme: on which arguments apply or should be avoided as justifications when voting in deletions proposals


 * Messages: X long, X medium, X short


 * Participants: X admin, X veteran, X new
 * Most present: 2 veterans and 1 administrator do most of the talking, but others join at specific points.


 * Tone: polite for the most parts, sometimes neutral.

A veteran editor sees a problem with ill justified votes in deletion proposals, and wants to change two essays on criteria to justify votes into recommendations. He argues based on his understanding that there is a problem and on past experience of the community. Other veteran editors and an admin join him, some raising issues with the current text of the essay, others showing a more fundamental opposition to the idea. The supporters try to fix the text and bring alternative middle-ground solutions. There is no conclusion since the discussion is still ongoing.
 * Long story short:

Critérios para artigos destacados
Mudança dos critérios para articos destacados. 13 usuários experientes e 2 adminsitradores, em ~60 mensagens, em tom neutro. O proponente fala em aumentar os critérios quantitativos para a promoção de um artigo destacado. Há argumetnos contrários sobre a ineficiencia dessa ação e julgam que o problema está na falta de qualificação dos votos. Novamente, fala-se em anular votos que não forem justificados de maneira suficiente. A discussão continua em andamento e com tendência para alteração dos critérios.

Recursos em domínio público

 * Theme: public domain information's page.
 * Messages: 0 long, 0 medium, 6 short
 * Participants: 0 admin, 3 veteran, 0 new
 * Most present: The veteran who started the discussion, 3 messages.
 * Tone: all polite
 * Long story short: The proposal is still under discussion. Everyone (2) agrees with the use of a new page with information about public domain content, but the old title should be maintained.

Fusão, melhor exemplo

 * Theme: replace page content.
 * Messages: 0 long, 0 medium, 1 short
 * Participants: 0 admin, 1 veteran, 0 new
 * Most present: none, but a veteran started the discussion.
 * Tone: all polite
 * Long story short: The proposal is still under discussion. Offers a better explanation to the page about fusions to be made.

Ajuda:Guia de tradução

 * Theme: wikilove implementation tools.
 * Messages: 0 long, 0 medium, 2 short
 * Participants: 0 admin, 2 veteran, 0 new
 * Most present: none, but a veteran started the discussion.
 * Tone: all polite
 * Long story short: Change the location to the articles list to be translated. The proposal is still under discussion.

Wikilove

 * Theme: wikilove implementation tools.
 * Messages: 0 long, 0 medium, 5 short
 * Participants: 2 admin, 3 veteran, 0 new
 * Most present: none, but a veteran started the discussion.
 * Tone: all polite
 * Long story short: The proposal is still under discussion. Everyone (5) agrees with the implementation of wikilove's tools.

Summary
A small number of veteran users and administrators, around 15, seem to take part in most discussions. Such discussions usually happen in a polite or neutral tone. There are no exalted comments, but sometimes there is use of irony to disqualify an opposing point of view. New users and unregistered users have close to no participation.

Of the discussions above, around 12 deal with processes or criteria for the deletion or acceptance of new articles. Then there are around the same number of discussions regarding the improvement or addition of content. Only two discussions deal with community issues ("logo 700k" and "Wikilove"). Of all these, 8 of them were started by the same veteran editor.

Discussions related to vote justifications were frequent, as it is required that votes in deletion proposals be justified, while it is not clear what should count as a justification. It is argued that more stringent criteria would limit participation and place too much power in the hands of administrators, while less stringent criteria renders the requirement ineffective in promoting more consensual deliberation and discouraging puppets and carelessness.