Wikipedia:Requests for process

Graph illustrating the rise in process levels from 2005 to estimated levels at the end of 2008. By the end of 2008, process levels are expected to be OVER 9,000!

The amount of process on the English Wikipedia has grown beyond control. The solution for every new issue that comes up seems to be to make some sort of process to deal with the issue in a bureaucratic way.

Problem

• Deletion uses excess amounts of process.
• User rights process have grown beyond manageable levels.
• We have ridiculous levels of process to deal with disputes involving users and articles.
• No policy (or process) change can be made without a big vote and indeed, we even schedule some of these votes.

Solution

But what can we do? Obviously we can't remove process outright. Besides the amount of process that we would have to go through to remove it, most have become so entrenched that they are now completely unremovable. The solution is to limit the process, and that's what Requests for process does.

Procedure

Instead of allowing anyone to create process, they must request it here first. Any process started without a link to approval may be immediately reverted.

Submitting

A request for process template is filled out and placed into the "New requests" section. A user may only make 1 non-urgent process request per day.

{{subst:ProcessRequest
| title = <!-- Should be formatted as username/YYYY-MM-DD -->
| type = <!-- Deletion debate, RFC, noticeboard thread, RFAR, proposal etc. -->
| people = <!-- Number of people expected to be involved -->
| length = <!-- Time in hours the process is expected to last -->
| vote = <!-- Yes or no, will there be a vote or poll? -->
| description = <!-- Short description of why you need process -->
| urgent = <! Is this an urgent request? --> }}

Valid values for "urgent" are "urgent", "very urgent", "extremely urgent", and "Wikipedia is likely to be taken over by vandals and Pokémon article authors within approximately 30 seconds if this is not approved". Providing other values is grounds for immediate rejection. It is expected that most requests will fall into the last category.

Clerks

A Request for process clerk will make sure your request is properly formatted, remove it if not, and move it to the "Needs review" section if it is formatted properly.

Urgent requests

If a matter is marked as urgent, it may be speedily approved by a member of the Process Committee, though this approval may be revoked and the process terminated if the committee later determines that it was not urgent.

Approval

If not urgent, it will be deliberated by members of the Process Committee. It will be moved into the "Reviewed" section and marked as 1 of 8 states:

1. Approved The process must begin in the next 12 hours.
2. Provisionally approved The process is provisionally approved, and must be implemented within the next 12 hours, but will be subject to review after a period of time specified by the Process Committee following a poll.
3. Partially approved. The portion of the process partially approved will appear pending provisional parsing into portions passing approval and portions denied. All portions shall be subject to sub-processes to be determined by committees to be formed at the appropriate time, which will be only after such processes proceed apace, prior to procedural apportionment as given in subsections yet to be written, pending unwritten subprocesses by as yet undetermined non-parliamentary adjudicating and non-self-obfuscatory entities.
4. Delayed <time> There is currently too much non-important process going on, but the requested process can be started in the 12 hours following the time given.
5. Denied with prejudice The process is unnecessary and may not be started. Users whose requests are frequently denied may be process-banned for a period of time by the Committee.
6. Denied without prejudice The necessity of the process has not been adequately substantiated at present, but has at least been marginally demonstrated, and an amended request may be resubmitted after a period of not less than 36 hours.
7. Denied with apathy The Process Committee has no opinion on whether the process should be implemented or not, but is too over-taxed at present to go through with the approval process. The Process Committee will take the weekend to get their shit together, and will get back to you first thing on Monday.
8. Needs-input The Process Committee needs more input from the requesting user before making a decision.

Appeal

Appeal of denied requests may only be done via direct request to Jimbo Wales. The Arbitration Committee is not a method of appeal as filing an RFAR requires an approval from the Process Committee first leading to a conflict of interest. Users may also appeal an approved/delayed request to the Process Committee mailing list, and an injunction may be issued to halt the process while it is being re-reviewed.

Appeal of approved requests

People who are against a given approval may file a request for approval review. Once a request for approval review is approved, the approval is then reviewed, and a decision will be made whether to uphold, revert, or send the proposal back to requests for process (this page).

Process Committee

The Process Committee will consist of 12 members elected to 2 month terms. The election process will consist of 2 weeks for nomination time, 4 weeks of Q&A, followed by 3 weeks of voting. Process Committee members must have at least 10,000 edits, with at least 25,000 combined in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces.

Clerks

Any user with at least 5,000 combined edits in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces may apply to the Process Committee to be a clerk. A decision to approve or deny such applications shall be given by the Process Committee no sooner than 7 days after the application was submitted, to allow sufficient time for the merits of the applicant to be discussed. For purposes of approving or denying applications for clerkship, a quorum shall consist of no fewer than three-fifths of the total active membership of the Process Committee. An application that passes without comment from the committee for 13 or more days shall be regarded as being effectively denied. Re-application for clerkship may not be made by a denied applicant after fewer than 45 days, unless said re-application is approved by way of appeal to the Process Committee's Standing Subcommittee for Clerkship Application Appeals.

Process Committee's Standing Subcommittee for Clerkship Application Appeals

The Process Committee's Standing Subcommittee for Clerkship Application Appeals shall be composed of not less than nineteen-sixtieths and not more than seven-seventeenths of the total active membership of the Process Committee, selected by means of dividing each Process Committee member's last Wikipedia-articlespace diff number by pi, then multiplying by the sum total of articles about extinct fish. The number resulting shall be hashed (not omeletted), and the members whose numbers are evenly divisible by an irrational number randomly chosen by the appellee, shall be placed on the Process Committee's Standing Subcommittee for Clerkship Application Appeals. Said Standing Subcommittee for Clerkship Application Appeals shall have sole and ultimate authority over appeal, except in case of asteroid impact, or other comparable cataclysmic event (see full list here).

Process Requests

New requests are now being accepted! tfeSil (aktl) 08:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

New requests

These requests need sorting by a clerk.

Needs Review

For requests awaiting review by the Process Committee.

1. I would like to have the process for electing the process committee reviewed. Can some one get on this please? Tiptoety ^talk 00:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

   You'll need four OTRS ticket numbers to process this process. filetS (atlk) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed

Process requests that the Process Committee has ruled on, will be archived in 24 hours

FCYTravis/2008-04-01

• Type: Process discussion
• People: A googol
• Length: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 picoseconds.
• Vote: Condorcet method
• Description: Creating a process by which Wikipedians may discuss and standardize the format of discussions about how requests for process should be processed.
• Urgent: Yes

FCYTravis (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Result: Denied with prejudice because the Process Committee is prejudiced. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man/2008-04-01

• Type: Proposal discussion
• People: 30-40
• Length: 3-5 weeks
• Vote: Likely
• Description: Discussion of proposed "Requests for process" system.
• Urgent: No

  — Mr.Z-man 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Result: Denied without prejudice. More specification is required on the voting process, the discussion process, the length process, the urgency process, and the description process. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety/2008-04-01

• Type: Elections discussion
• People: 90-100
• Length: How ever long an RfA runs for
• Vote: Of course, isnt that how it works in an RfA now anyways?
• Description: Elect clerks to sort requests
• Urgent: Yes! Otherwise how will this work?

  Tiptoety ^talk 00:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Result: Provisionally approved. This user has appointed himself to process process requests by the process request process. A poll will be necessary within 12 hours to confirm this process decision. Prior to the poll, a straw poll must be carried out to gauge whether there is a consensus that this matter should be dealt with by poll. Prior to the straw poll, the permissibility of straw polls must be debated by the community by way of a request for arbitration, community sanction, request for bureaucratship, and request for Jimbo. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what process elected you to be the clerk? Tiptoety ^talk 22:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The clerk election process; as determined by consensus on or about 31 March 2008. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Vickers/2008-04-01

• Type: Proposal proposal
• People: Sockpuppets and single-purpose accounts only.
• Length: Indefinite.
• Vote: Inconclusive, but heated.
• Description: Process to assess the need for a process sub-committee for initial and informal screening of process requests before they are formally submitted to the main process committee.
• Urgent: Extremely

Tim Vickers (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Decision: Declined with prejudice. tfeSil (aktl) 08:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Coren/2008-04-01

• Type: Proposal discussion
• People: Uncountable fools
• Length: 1 day
• Vote: Likely
• Description: Process to approve April's Fool's jokes a priori.
• Urgent: Yes

— Coren ^(talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Decision: Go do it yourself. tfeSil (aktl) 08:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion/2008-04-01

• Type: Proposal discussion
• People: 6,000,000 registered users
• Length: 1 hour
• Vote: No. Poll? Probably.
• Description: Discussion to decide whether or not BLP can be ignored temporarily for the sake of April Fools jokes.
• Urgent: Extremely.

Equazcion •✗/C • 02:38, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• • Decision: Deferred to WT:BLP. filetS (atlk) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Grandmasterka/2008-04-01

• Type: Consensus-building poll
• People: 450 wasn't enough, so, 500+
• Length: However long it takes
• Vote: A succession of polls, held one after another.
• Description: A consensus poll to determine what 'consensus' is, followed by a poll about a poll, about a poll, about whether to continue granting the ordinary peons rollback powers.
• Urgent: This is the most urgent thing we could possibly do on Wikipedia.

Grandmasterka 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Decision: Go do it yourself. filetS (atlk) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sbowers3/2008-04-01

• Description: I can't find {{ProcessRequest}}. Somebody should build it.
• Urgent: This whole thing is going to slow down if we don't have the proper tools.
• Type: Template-building
• People: How many does it take to screw in a light bulb?
• Length: By day's end
• Vote: just do it

Sbowers3 (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Decision: Approved. filetS (atlk) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See also

• WP:PRO