Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
unsubst |
m Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (101x) Tag: Fixed lint errors |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Pending changes discussions}}
{{archive}}
'''This page contains the third and final phase of a three-phase RfC regarding what to do with Pending Changes in the interim period following its trial. It was decided by consensus that it would be removed from all pages by May 20, 2011. For more information, skip to the [[#Closure|closing]].'''
'''The full text from the proposal page is below. See also [[Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 5|its concurrent talk page]].'''
==Proposal==
Line 21:
# '''Support''' - we agreed to a 2-month trial; it has stayed on for eight. A 'straw poll' supported (60%) ''temporary'' continuation with a drop-dead date of December 2010. Why on Earth is this still on, with no consensus? To move forwards - to have any meaningful discussion - we must first clear the air. The use of PC right now makes a mockery of the Wikipedian ethos of consensus. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 09:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - As I've said in past arguments, simply to clear the air. The discussions are currently going nowhere because it's impossible to assume good faith when a past assurance continues not to be honored (i.e. begs the question: How can we trust you to honor the results of discussions if you're not honoring the results of a previous one?). From what I can see, it will be reinstated soon enough (assuming no major problems are found with it), with usage guidelines, scope, and implementation more reflective of actual consensus. '''<span style="font-family:century gothic">[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#000">Obsidi<span style="color:#f50">♠</span>n</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#f50">Soul</span>]]</sup></span>''' 10:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - purely and simply on Chzz's very good point, that a clean slate will help (eg only for BLPs while were already using it elsewhere). [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
#'''Support''' Ending the PC trial will help clear the air and allow future debates to stay on topic, rather than all ending up as discussions about the trial. It will also help future features be trialled (the main reason the trial got in in the first place was due to users supporting with the understanding that it would be removed, and only because it would be removed, saying they wanted to try it out. If we don't keep the promise of turning features off after the trial, this factor will be lost for future trial proposals). In addition, there is no consensus, and no evidence that PC is good. User's claiming we should keep the trial on because PC is "good", are expressing their own opinion, not fact. Stopping the trial may mean people to actually analysis the results properly. - [[User:Kingpin13|Kingpin]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kingpin13|13]]</sup> ([[User talk:Kingpin13|talk]]) 10:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - [[Ace Attorney|Who the hell's been administering this trial, von Karma?]] If consensus had seriously been followed, this would have been done a long while ago. Time to reset to the status quo and assess the trial, then make a final decision after we're better informed. —<
# '''Support''' It is only logical that PC is removed from pages using it. I'm all for PC but let's remove it first since pages using PC are using it because of the trial (which has ended). After we have a clear consensus, policy and guideline on PC usage, then only implement it ''proper''. [[User:Bejinhan|<
# '''Support''' Per UncleDouggie. [[User:Jsayre64|<
#'''Support''' Now if only some clever people could, from a neutral standpoint, analyse the trial data and make some kind of sense of them to enable more informed debate. [[User:Contains Mild Peril|Contains Mild Peril]] ([[User talk:Contains Mild Peril|talk]]) 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' If a new consensus emerges that PC should be used on this project, then pages can be PC-protected under this new consensus. But the consensus that lead to the current protections does not cover any use after the trial has ended and should be respected. Ending this trial does not mean that PC cannot be reinstated in future with a real policy for its use after all (although I personally am against it). Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 32:
#'''Weakly support''' taking it off non-BLPs. For example, it is on [[2010 Atlantic hurricane season]]. On the other hand, it is doing no harm, and I agree with Wanderer57: how does it prevent discussion? [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 14:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
# '''Weakly support''' Honestly why are we making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Its time to move on and if removing the protection is the only way so be it. [[User:Phatom87|Phatom87]] <sup>([[User talk:Phatom87|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Phatom87|contribs]])</sup> 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' the software needs more work on. It is not intuitive. [[User talk:Mabdul|<
#Start over time. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 15:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I originally was a strong supporter of PC, and have long wanted to see it become a success. But I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of clearing the air, and I also believe strongly that serious work still needs to be done on PC. The developers need to work on fixing problems that the community has raised, and they definitely can do so, so long as the infrastructure is left in place. And we, in the community, need to develop the now-missing policy for its use: what exactly should or should not be rejected?, and what are the responsibilities of the reviewers?, among other significant issues. These issues need to be addressed before there is any chance of a ''real'' consensus to use PC. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 15:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 38:
#'''Support'''. Long overdue and may help facilitate long-term consensus on the question of PC. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 16:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Per Chzz and Tryptofish. It's collaboration we're asking for. A test period was granted (2 months), an extention with a hard deadline was authorized (December), and now we're 3 months beyond that deadline with pages (beyond what I understand the processes's scope (like Atheisim)) still entered onto the PC rolls. I agree the procedure is nice, but untill we get more of the usage, responsibilities, and policy documents/guidelines I must register my viewpoint as removing the PC protection (to whatever protection the article had before) but not the infrastructure. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' the poll that produced the original consensus to turn the feature on was for a trial with a specified end date. In the absence of any consensus to make the feature permanent or start another trial the feature should be removed from articles. Failing to do this has damaged the credibility of any future software trial proposals. I don't object to PC being left on for a handful of articles if there are exceptional circumstances. ''
#'''Grudging support''' this side issue has hijacked the RFC on the ''future'' of pending changes. How it is deployed ''presently'' is just a distraction that has persisted through the whole affair. If this is what it will take to make forward progress then let's do it and get back to the real issues. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The trial period has ended, so we should remove it for now and discuss. During those discussions, some changes might arise, and then an updated PC can then be applied. [[User:Angryapathy|Angryapathy]] ([[User talk:Angryapathy|talk]]) 19:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Yes please. -'''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small></span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<span style = 'color:#4B0082'>(TALK)</span>]]</small></sup> 20:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I disagree that this is just removal soley for the sake of making a point. This is making good on the original agreement that the trial would end, by the end of 2010 for the last agreement. ''Anything beyond that wasn't approved, '''it's that simple'''''. In the absense of any community agreement to do anything else this is the default option and the one we must follow. The only way around that is to totally ignore the original agreement, which as Chzz mentioned above totally goes against the whole concept of consensus. --[[User:nn123645|nn123645]] ([[User talk:nn123645|talk]]) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#We can't go on using it ''ad hoc'' indefinitely without a basic consensus for its use. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<
#'''Support''' Let's start afresh, remove it from all articles, and then let's add it to articles as the result of a protection request. Use it in cases where it is genuinely more appropriate to have PC rather than SP. I started as a rabid supported of PC but now I see its only real use as a protection level for BLP's - all of them. PC does little to stop vandalism. [[User:Pol430|<
#'''Support''', it's time this trial were over, and we finally are able to use better reasoning in the discussions. [[User:Sumsum2010|<
#'''Support'''. I sympathize with many of those who oppose because they don't see any reason to stop using PC where it is working, but I think PC has more potential than what we've done with it so far, and the continuation of the trial has caused enough friction to jam up discussion on how to make more of PC.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] ([[User talk:Ragesoss|talk]]) 23:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is necessary to deal with negative feelings about being lied to. I must say I have trouble with those myself and feel a strong irrational urge to oppose to everything related to pending changes. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 23:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- While I do support the continued use of Pending Changes in the future, it is long time to stop this weird purgatory-esque state we are in and make a decision about the future of PC. [[User:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover
#'''Support''' First things first. We are taking way too long to get to the real discussion, which should have happened at the end of the two month trial. [[User:Ntsimp|Ntsimp]] ([[User talk:Ntsimp|talk]]) 03:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC) (Moved comment from my accidental 2nd !vote--sorry) I've always broadly opposed Flagged Revisions, but the PC idea interested me because it could allow more IP edits. So I supported the proposed trial. There were those at the time who warned that PC supporters would cynically leave it turned on after the trial, but I assumed good faith. I've been proved wrong. Leaving PC turned on has done tremendous damage to the project's credibility and to our ability to settle controversial questions by consensus. The first step in solving the problem is to shut it down. [[User:Ntsimp|Ntsimp]] ([[User talk:Ntsimp|talk]]) 05:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' The trial ended months ago. While it was good to get a feel on how the feature works and how the community may adapt to it, there has been little community consensus to continue it or to implement the feature. We need more discussion of the matter, but in the meantime the feature should be turned off or drastically limited. At this point continuing it isn't going to lead to any revelations or change many opinions. Let's not make pending changes a ''fait accompli'' -- more discussion is needed and there needs to be a consensus to switch this on for anything more than the trial we agreed to. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<
# '''Support''' I find the PC protocol a useful supplement to protection but as the trial is overdue for completion and there should be plenty of data already, why keep it on so many articles? It should be used as an alternative to semi and a protocol needs to be established rather than the current blanket use. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] ([[User talk:Kyaa the Catlord|talk]]) 03:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. The trial was supposed to be for a set period of time. It should have ended as soon as that time period was over. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 03:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 56:
# '''Strong Support''' {{anchor|Guy Macon}}Harm has already been done by promising to conduct a trial for a set period of time and then breaking that promise. I now have to treat any proposal for a limited-time-trial as a proposal for an indefinite trial. Stopping the trial now limits further harm. [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 04:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#:Discussion moved to [[#Response to Guy Macon|Response to Guy Macon]] per instructions. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 06:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Just seriously take it away. This is causing way more discussion than does any BLPs; which we'll deal with promptly later. We need to adhere ''first and foremost'' to the promise given in the previous PC RFC. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<
# '''Support''' Conclusions from the last round were PC is confusing, and I read that PC can create a backlog and stopping the trial should bring these issues to light. Are we keeping the trial because we can't stop because of a backlog? Clearly more stats are needed on which to base decisions. Let's properly stop the trial (as planned), and start a new trial asap. [[User:Jane023|Jane]] ([[User talk:Jane023|talk]]) 09:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' End the trial so a more clear and direct discussion can begin.--[[User:NortyNort|NortyNort]] <small>[[User talk:NortyNort|(Holla)]]</small> 09:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 68:
#'''Support''' - there was never (as far as I can see) any kind of consensus for the trial going on for more than two months, so the fact that it has done so is unsupported - and, most of all, the air needs to be cleared and the slate cleaned (and possibly disinfected, too!) before anything more can be done in the way of movng on. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive; font-size:16pt">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;font-size:14pt;">talk</span>]]) 13:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' While the analysis of the discussions referenced at the top of the page shows high votes for 'it could be useful on BLPs' it also shows a large number of people think 'it's confusing'. We need to stop using it to sort out the 'it's confusing' problem. [[User:Edgepedia|Edgepedia]] ([[User talk:Edgepedia|talk]]) 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' As I have argued for some time, a minority of outspoken editors have steamrolled this idea through an unconvincing trial period and into this state of indefinite continuation regardless of consensus. Hopefully this <s>poll</s> discussion will set that straight [[User:Jebus989|'''<
#'''Support''' the pending change is confusing and removing the pending change from articles will remove the defunct feature. --[[User:Tyw7#p|<
#Support the ending of the trial process. Note that this is ''not'' support for the abolition of PC now-and-evermore, but only support for the discontinuation of this particular trial implementation. My impression from my dealings with it has been that the trial version is too slow and unstable to handle the high-traffic articles for which it was intended—and that extending it to all BLPs, as some below seem to be proposing, would bring the system grinding to a halt—but this is anecdotal. Someone needs to analyse where this worked and where it didn't, and the current "neither active nor inactive" state of PC is just causing confusion. – [[User:Iridescent|<
#'''Support''' Now you may say: why? It prevents vandalism, allows quality checking, but my reply is that it doesn't. The current implementation is uneven in its scope, and protects articles no bettr from vandalism as, say, a user using STiki does. If a single policy is made, choosing what level of FlaggedRevs to be used, where it is to be used, how it is to protect quality and impartiality in articles, then we will preserve Wikipedia's most sacred philosophies while protecting the reliability and quality of articles it is used on. The current trial implementation is an obstacle to that. Random articles seem to be protected with FlaggedRevs, and the current implementation of FlaggedRevs has not contributed at all to the quality of these articles, in my opinion. If we remove it, work on a proper implementation, and then implement it, Wikipedia will be a better place. --'''[[User talk:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: red">1</span><span style="color: blue">2</span><span style="color: green">3</span>]][[User:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: green">Hedgehog</span>]][[Special:Contributions/123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: green">4</span><span style="color: blue">5</span><span style="color: red">6</span>]]''' : <span style="color: yellow">'''''[[tools:~acc|Create an account!]]'''''</span> 19:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Take PC off so that we can move forward with the discussion. If it's not taken off, then the discussion will go around in an endless circle. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b
#'''Support'''. Better to turn off for now so that future discussions are not tainted by the trial issue. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''' Having this anomalous class of articles is not desirable. When we have a system that is will be clear to new editors and cpable of handling the editing intensity at Wikipedia, then we can consider one. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 21:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Emphatic support''': Never should have been allowed to dribble on this way in the first place. Next time someone wants a PC "trial", they shouldn't implement it unless the trial automatically stops at the appointed time.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 22:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' A trial is a trial. At the end of a trial you stop the experiment and evaluate, not let it carry on without consensus to continue. '''[[User:Ronhjones|<span style="border:1px solid black; color:
#'''Support'''. The trial ended *how* long ago? [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 01:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. It was used for a trial period and that trial period is over. Way over.--[[User:Michig|Michig]] ([[User talk:Michig|talk]]) 08:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 104:
# '''Support''' Just a trial, so I agree with Rpeh. Should have been removed as soon as trial was over.[[User:Libertarianrule|Libertarianrule]] ([[User talk:Libertarianrule|talk]]) 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - The trial has ended long ago. --[[User:M4gnum0n|M4gnum0n]] ([[User talk:M4gnum0n|talk]]) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' PC is confusing to new editors. '''[[User:EngineerFromVega|<
#'''Support'''. I am surprised that this has not already happened in the months since the non-end of the trial. '''[[User:SuperMarioMan|<
#'''Support'''. Mulling it over, I actually like the way PC was implemented, and once guidelines are set for what articles should be there, I think it can work with semi-protection. That being said, the trial ended months ago, so until ground rules are set on all fronts and everything's in place, the trial has to be removed. Ask every corporation that's ever existed, when a trial runs out, the service is kaput. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>[[User:Wizardman/Operation Big Bear|<span style="color:#600">Operation Big Bear</span>]]</sub> 12:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Ending the trial by decapitating the beast will have two effects. First, it'll back the supporters into a corner where the rest of us will finally have the leverage to compel them to make real, final, and clear decisions on scope, implementation, purpose, and legal ramifications, and to write a half decent document explaining those decisions to the community. Second, it will force the PC supporters to come back to the community with the above document and the trial data in hand, put all their cards on the table, and make their best and final case. This will galvanize both sides, lead to a more reasonable and hopefully more efficinent debate, and finally put this mess to bed one way or the other. I think it's time for these things to happen. [[User:Sven Manguard|<
#'''Support''' - no more vagueness. — ''[[User:La Pianista|<span style="color:#777;font-family:Times;">La Pianista</span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:La Pianista|♫ ]][[Special:Contributions/La Pianista|♪]]</sup> 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I supported the trial (and support some form of flagged revisions... really anything workable, broadly interpreting workable), but I thought I understood that the trial would end... that is that the trial flagging would go away... unless the trial flagging was made permanent.[[User:Shajure|Shajure]] ([[User talk:Shajure|talk]]) 19:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 113:
#'''Support''' - with no predjudice toward further, well-defined trials and ideally agreed upon analytical metrics <small>--unsigned comment by [[user:Ost316|Ost316]]</small>
#'''Support''' – I was entrusted with reviewer rights in December 2010, and I'm convinced that Pending Changes will do Wikipedia some good. If there isn't anything else to test from the current version, then we should move on to the next step. If Pending Changes is going to continue, it should be official and supported by the community. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 21:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - it definitely HAS reduced vandalism and other un-wanted editing to high-target pages, so it should stay. Not to say that there should be a little bit more explanation to new users about it in the policy, but that can be rolled-out after full integration. [[User:A p3rson|<span style="border:2px solid lime;color:white;padding:1px;background:black;"> A p<
#'''Support''' – If it will more quickly get us to the point where we can turn it on officially, then let's turn it off for now. —[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 05:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – Chzz makes a compelling case for ending the trial. I for one find myself much of the time opposing PC merely because consensus is being overriden without paying much attention to the actual issues. A calmer atmosphere for discussion is needed. [[User:Spinningspark|'''<
#'''Support''' - In the spirit of fairness, if nothing else. Forcing the trial to continue indefinitely will probably do great harm to the social fabric of the project. As a supporter of the implementation of pending changes in some form, I am not optimistic that once removed we will ever see it again on this project. However, it is only fair that the trial is ended so the playing field can be levelled and a serious debate can be held on the future for flagged revisions. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 15:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per UncleDouggie and Chzz. '''[[User:Spencer|<span style="color:#082567">Spencer</span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">T♦</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">C</span>]]</sup> 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' so that discussion can advance. Also, this was supposed to a be a short trial. '''[[User talk:Aaron Schulz|<
#'''Support''' - should have been done a long time ago [[User:Meshach|meshach]] ([[User talk:Meshach|talk]]) 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Per Chzz. [[User:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#000070; font-family: Times New Roman">''Alpha Quadrant''</span>]] [[User talk:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#A00000; font-family: Times New Roman"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 01:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 127:
#::I'd like in response to later comments to make the observation that the continuation of PC after the trial was made as a result of a poll decided by ''majority vote'', as required by Jimbo. There has never been any kind of consensus for continuing PC after the trial. And now we have various users who say that there's no consensus for this proposal, arguing for using high standards for assessing consensus here. That's one of the most obnoxious of double standards I've ever witnessed on Wikipedia. [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is policy, and even much more than that, we should follow policy not only when it suits oneself, but all the time where it makes sense. Due to the intervention of Jimbo, consensus was not followed, but it should be followed now. Consensus weighs arguments, so please take under consideration the argument that I've just made. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Community perception, et all, also I don't see how it can continue in its present incarnation without eventually growing to encompass all of Wikipedia (although that might take a few years). I think we need to discuss exactly how this ranks above/below semi-protection, whether this should go on all BLP, how the chances of simple minority consensu and/or sock puppets affects "confirmed status" and what that might do to the chance of lawsuits. Worst, though, the interface is a little cludgy. From the list of pending edits, you can't just review the edit listed there, you first have to look at the history to see if there were any previous edits made by someone else or the same person (otherwise you will only be show the diff between the "present" and "most recent edit". I have seen it apparently make a difference, though, when I reverted obvious vandalism that had sat there for an hour or less. [[User:Banaticus|Banaticus]] ([[User talk:Banaticus|talk]]) 09:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. In my eyes PC is a decent new tool in the "Fighting vandalism" toolbelt, and i believe it will certainly help with the [[WP:BLP|BLP]] headaches that sometimes occur. Even so, i do not support keeping the 1000 or so article's on PC for now. We initially agreed on a two month trial after which changes would be evaluated, which would then lead to an improvement round, before we have a final discussion on whether or not this would be enabled. Regardless whether it is eventually kept around or not, I believe we should honour the original agreement to stop the trial now the time is over (Without prejudice for future trials). I believe this is no more then fair towards the people who were against, but still agreed with a trial - besides, how many would support a trial if they knew it would simply go months overdue? [[User:Excirial|<
#'''Support''', and I supported introducing PC in the first place. It clearly isn't going anywhere for the time being, and keeping it on only 1000 pages is just unhelpful to everybody; newbies who come across one of those articles will be puzzled why they operate on a completely different system. Pending changes should either be widely used, or not used at all, but using it on only a few pages is the worst of all options. We should turn it off (as this was supposed to be a trial, after all), take some time to consider the results and effects it had, and then come to a decision whether to reintroduce it on a larger scale. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' trial over, let's go forward from there. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 23:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 134:
#'''Support''', as the lingering of Pending Changes on the few articles can cause resentment or a sense of unfairness, and ultimately removing it from the articles - but maintaining the possibility of PC - hopefully will clear the air and allow things to proceed more quickly, benefiting the community whether the ultimate decision is for or against PC. Even if it is decided it's best to implement PC on a large scale, removing it temporarily to decide more quickly will be beneficial. [[User:Layona1|Layona1]] ([[User talk:Layona1|talk]]) 02:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support.'''it is confusing. [[User:Ianlopez12|Ianlopez12]] ([[User talk: Ianlopez12|talk]]) 12 :08 , April 15, 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' What is the point of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, if you have to wait for your edits to get "moderated"? --[[User:Mukkakukaku|<
#:Because Pending changes is a hell of a lot better than indefinite semi-protection. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 06:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' Start over without baggage. [[User:Tarlneustaedter|Tarl.Neustaedter]] ([[User talk:Tarlneustaedter|talk]]) 07:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support.'''Can prevent vandalism and unwanted unreliable articles. --[[User:PREVRAVANTH]] Prev Ravanth 10:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#:This is for supporting ending the trial, not the whole question of PC. —<
#'''Support.''' IMHO "pending changes" is a bad idea, (complication downsides far outweigh the small benefits) keeping the trial going is a step in the wrong direction, ending it a step in the right direction. <
#'''Support''' per clear agreement to do so when the trial was started. [[User:TotientDragooned|TotientDragooned]] ([[User talk:TotientDragooned|talk]]) 20:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Weak Support''' - Although I like the idea of the pending changes, in it's current form it's not wide reaching enough. Ending it for now and starting out fresh after some discussion would be a good idea [[User:Cls14|Cls14]] ([[User talk:Cls14|talk]]) 09:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' Until improved version is available and a trial remains a trial. --[[User:KrebMarkt|KrebMarkt]] ([[User talk:KrebMarkt|talk]]) 17:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - [[Wikipedia:Pending changes|PC protection]] has shown to be excellent alternative to semiprotection however I have seen many cases where admins place PC on a page thatshould be semi'd or not protected at all abd do think a break from PC is desperately needed ''<
#'''Support''' We should not need a RfC to do this. The trial was scheduled to end at a certain time; it therefore should have been ended at that time, period. [[User:A Stop at Willoughby|A Stop at Willoughby]] ([[User talk:A Stop at Willoughby|talk]]) 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''', but shouldn't need to. I and everyone else who agreed to the trial proposal agreed to a limited-time ''trial''. A trial means "We'll let everyone try it out to see how it works in real-world scenarios, and then we'll shut it off while we figure out if we want to use it permanently". It does ''not'' mean "We'll sneak it in by calling it a 'trial', and then ramrod through leaving it on after the trial the community approved has ended." That's totally unacceptable, and it's past time to shut this thing down. Maybe someday we'll want to turn it back on again. Maybe we won't. That's up to the normal consensus process to decide. But the trial, which was the only thing that did gain consensus, is long over. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 149:
#'''Support''' - regardless of the good or harm of the feature, the trial has continued far longer than initially stated. thinking even longer-term than just this one feature, it is likely that when other possibly useful features are proposed in the future that editors that feel burned by this episode will simply reject it out of hand. just as a comment on PC itself, i have had no experience other than an occasional page visit that contained the PC notice, and it seemed a good idea to me as long as it was a very short-term tag. i have no opinion either way as to the final outcome, but i feel that it's obvious that the good-faith acceptance of this trial by those who now question or decided against the feature has done far more damage than any good that could come from continuing it prior to further discussion. (sorry forgot to sign [[User:Shelleybutterfly|Shelleybutterfly]] ([[User talk:Shelleybutterfly|talk]]) 16:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC))
#:'''note''' - the user above has six edits - two of them to this page. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
#::And? This is a ''community-wide proposal''. How can you single out a new editor ''when you have an anon voting oppose on the same proposal''? You have a fucked-up double-standard, O2RR. —<
#'''Support'''. A trial is what was promised. Neglecting so prominent a promise by just keeping it going pretty severely damages the basis of trust we need to be able to work cooperatively, in my opinion. It'd be best at this point to end the trial, give the community the chance to draw conclusions from it, and discuss it calmly without all the drama that the neglected promise engenders. – <
#'''Support'''. While I think pending changes is pretty inevitable, I understand why the methods used to implement it have made many people feel disenfranchised. With a change this fundamental it seems important not to push it through as a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Fait_accompli|fait accompli]] and by breaking an agreement, but rather through good faith discussion that doesn't dismiss other people's concerns because they disagree with you about the results that would stem from not using pending changes for a little while. Also, can we please put together a set of guidelines for them before use? [[User:UsernameRedacted|UsernameRedacted]] ([[User talk:UsernameRedacted|talk]]) 13:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
====Oppose proposal====
::<s>'''Oppose'''</s> move to support. I say keep the pending changes on the articles they're on. It appears to be doing no harm, indeed even helping on them. Now we've seen pending changes working, removing them seems like a step backwards. (NB, this isn't a ''strong'' objection - I just don't see the point in removing them) [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
#'''Oppose''' The suggestion is akin to having automatic starters removed from cars after they were proven to work. Ot to removing a new medicine from patients in a clinical trial when the medicine was proven effective for their illness. Pending changes has been proven to reduce vandalism and BLP violations. All it is is "removal for the sake of removal" which makes precious little sense at all. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 10:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Pending protection is working fine on less than one thousand articles and there is no worthwhile reason to remove the tool from them. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 11:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 162:
#:<s>'''Oppose'''</s>, it is a useful tool, it should remain on the articles it is currently protecting (unless consensus on those pages decide that the protection isn't needed or another form of protection would be better, but that's for the article editors to decide). If consensus decides that PC will be mothballed then it can be removed then. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This process bullying is exactly why WP is such a mess. Nothing can be done without process fetishism. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#:If trying to enforce a consensus is "process bullying" or "process wonkery", I wonder what the hell edit wars and wikilawyering are! —<
#::The differences is between bureaucrats who are here for the sake of the rules and pragmatics who are here for the sake of the content. Every self regulated system eventually breaks down under the weight of the bureaucracy, and it is pobvious that wikipedia is going that way under the guise of "process needs to be followed". We have a functional tool about which most editors agree it helps at least in some areas, but it is torpedoed by the process-oriented bureaucrats because of process fetishism. I think it is disgusting. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I am not aware of any real problems, and I believe the benefits outweigh any that might exist. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 20:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 170:
#:'''Oppose''' as ever. Are you guys still talking about this? Just implement it Wikiwide and move on. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 09:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - I like the pending changes. It provides us with a great alternative to protecting some pages, and I quite honestly don't understand why some people want to remove that. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 22:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Pending Changes undoubtedly reduces the vandalism load, allowing vandal fighters to make other contributions. We need to focus on improving Wikipedia's quality. <span style="white-space:nowrap">[[User:Guoguo12|<
#'''Oppose''' - no reason whatsoever not to allow admins to use it. On lightly edited articles, it's a useful tool to ensure that vandalism doesn't get published until reviewed. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 23:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Oppose'''</s> (Moved to observe) I wanted to support this notion as a comprise. Unfortunately, I see the context more as an indictment, and any compromise I bring in good faith would constitute surrender. I have already seen the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011&diff=next&oldid=420535916 calls for finding fault]. I am sure at some level "I dropped the ball". And I know when a proposal says "The Pending Changes trial ended many months ago" followed by "it is only to end the trial". It is a position I can not support. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 23:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 178:
#::*Sort of, but not really. For example, right now, if someone edits a page under PC (e.g., [[Gout]]), and that page is on my watchlist, then when I go to my watchlist, I get a note about it needing review. It's automatic, and it's real. That's simply not going to happen on the couple of test pages. These people will see zero real articles and zero real editing and end up with zero real experience about how it ''really'' works. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Very useful tool, see no reason to remove it. Don't see how this would move forward a ''rational'' debate about its broader usage. --[[User:Elekhh|Elekhh]] ([[User talk:Elekhh|talk]]) 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This proposal appears to advocate harming the encyclopedia for the sake of process wonkery. It is perfectly possible and reasonable to keep pending changes in use while discussing its use. [[User:Captain panda|<
#'''Oppose''' Pending changes is useful that it prevents vandalism from building up, without having to use semi-protection, which punishes IP users for the actions of a few. It is also useful for articles that not many people have on their watchlist. Finally, I believe that every article should have pending changes. This way, Wikipedians can focus on content addition and copyediting, rather than having their edit counts boosted by reverting vandalism, warning vandals, placing vandals on the [[WP:AIV|AIV]], and requesting page protection. <big><
#'''Oppose''' {{anchor|Elipongo}}It's working and it's working well. I don't recall a consensus that it would be turned off after the trial period, just that there would be more discussion. Just because that discussion is belated still isn't a reason to shut it off. —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] <small>([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]])</small> 03:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#:Discussion moved to [[#Response to Elipongo|Response to Elipongo]] per instructions. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 07:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 187:
#'''Oppose''' Pending Changes are a useful tool against BLP Vandalism. It is less harmful to our core goal of being an encyclopedia "anyone"** can edit then semi-protection. (Yes, I know blocked/banned users cannot)... Semi-protection removes the ability of IP Editors completely.. Pending Changes allows them to still edit, but having the edit reviewed before going "live" reduces the risk that google spiders and the like will echo vandalism further out. We should be aggressively ramping UP the use of Pending changes, rather than this. I compare this to an attempt to rob PC of its momentum, and then argue that we shouldn't restart it, because we already tried once, and then stopped. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 06:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#:See [[#Response to HJ Mitchell and SirFozzie|discussion below]].
#Fozzie took the words right out of my mouth. Quite why anybody would want to rob us of a useful tool in the fight against vandalism that doesn't make anybody without an established account feel unwelcome is beyond me. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<
#:See [[#Response to HJ Mitchell and SirFozzie|discussion below]].
#'''Oppose''' It's working. Bobrayner brings up a good point also. [[User:Mkdw|<span style="font-size: 13px arial; color: #3366FF;">Mkdw</span>]][[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''talk''</sup>]] 07:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#[[File:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] '''Oppose''' Pending changes are better than any other way for protecting articles here. Wikipedia is supposed to be free encyclopedia which all people who come in good faith should be able to edit, not only for few elected sysops or confirmed people, protecting articles with regular protections (edit=autoconfirmed or sysop) is evil and removing opportunity for regular people to edit this encyclopedia would not make it better. [[User:Petrb|Petrb]] ([[User talk:Petrb|talk]]) 08:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Oppose''' Keeping the PC trial going will expose more people to PC, and give more chances to identify bugs/future enhancements. --[[User:JaGa|<b><
#:Although I still maintain there's nothing wrong with allowing the trial to continue, other editors are using this issue to hold up the process. In the interest of moving forward, I withdraw my oppose. --[[User:JaGa|<b><
#'''Oppose''' - it's working perfectly well as it is right now and is serving to protect a number of significant BLPs. I'm not willing to accept the 'collateral damage' involved in removing it; there's too much already as it is - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D; font-family:
#'''Oppose'''. Why semi-protect 1000 editable pages? You must really hate new editors. If some of the articles don't need protection take them to RFPP. Otherwise get over it (the 'difficult to discuss' thing) and think about moving swiftly forwards, not backwards. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 12:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose'''. I have noticed that in some pending changes there is severe vandalism. This is working very well. Keeping this will also give some editors the opportunity to have there edits seen by others, and then possibly applied to the article while at the same time keeping vandalism rates way down. If we remove this tool and replace the pending changes with semi-protection, tens of thousands of new editors will not be able to have their facts added to an article. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>([[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|Shout!]])</sup> 16:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 200:
#'''Oppose''' I don't see a clear practical reason here for why we need to remove it. I don't see this as an "either-or" situation. I see great potential for PC as an option for some situations, while still using semi-protect for others. E.g. perhaps use PC for current-events and lower-traffic pages. [[User:Nealmcb|★NealMcB★]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I really do not understand why we have to turn pending changes off in order to determine how to use pending changes. If we were deciding a new policy on acceptable usernames, we wouldn't insist on stopping anyone from registering. If we were rewriting the BLP policies, we wouldn't just systematically delete all BLP articles so that we have a "clean slate" to work from. This whole discussion is a way of avoiding the actual substantive discussion. Indeed, if we have pending changes turned on, the discussion of the policy can be informed by the fact that we can compare like-for-like pages that are under PC protection with those that are unprotected, semi-protected and fully protected. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 21:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. If the trial has not ended, it simply means ''"It is working !"'' [[User:in fact|<
#:What sort of logic is that? —<
#'''Oppose''' I can only use common sense to guide me. I haven't read enough about this to have more information. But my gut says there is no reason to stop a good thing that works for no reason. My gut also says if there was a good reason, it would be easily seen. I haven't seen it. [[User:Town,WP|Town,WP]] ([[User talk:Town,WP|talk]]) 23:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
#:People have discredited my opposition on my talk page. I don't know what else to say. I like pending changes. I want it to continue. and this is my opinion. If that's not good enough, erase my comments. [[User:Town,WP|Town,WP]] ([[User talk:Town,WP|talk]]) 22:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Why remove it. I see no sufficient reason.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 11:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I don't see any reason to remove it, regardless of when the trial ended. It's only benefiting the articles it is currently activated on. [[User:Tyrol5|<
#'''oppose''' per Alison and Doc James --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<
#'''Oppose''' – No, just no. PC is working well on articles that do not merit the need for semi-protection, such as low-traffic BLPs (high-traffic ones should be semi-protected). [[Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it|If it ain't broke, don't fix it.]] <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—[[User:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">mc10</span>]] ([[User talk:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">t</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/MC10|<span style="color:#000000">c</span>]])</span> 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
#:Moved to [[#Response to MC10]] below. —<
#'''Strong Oppose''' - BLP articles that currently use it should be able to keep testing it. Others, perhaps it can be removed, but this tool helps curb BLP vandalism which could otherwise be libelous. Let's not reopen ourselves to that problem at least on those articles. However, I recognize there is currently a 2-1 consensus as of my vote in support of the above proposal. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#:Addendum to above opinion: I have yet to see a single valid reason why this ought to be removed other than "the trial is ended". [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 19:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 216:
#:When a trial is over, things should revert to the way they were before the trial started, whatever protection that may have been for each article. If you want something else, you're free to propose it here. You can also directly request any protection level for a given article using the normal method. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 06:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I'd prefer to see us implement Flagged revisions on all articles as is working on DE wiki. But Pending changes on 950 articles is better than nothing, and if we remove it from those 950 I've no confidence that it will restart until the next major incident. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 21:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Clearly a good alternative to semi-protection and should be allowed to be applied on an case-by-case basis if there is consensus. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|<
#'''Oppose''' - I think keeping them on the articles they are on is fine. I don't see any harm being done by leaving them where they are. Maybe in the future, we can come up with a new system to replace them in that case it can be removed. [[User:Tofutwitch11|<span style='font-family: "Arial Black"; color:Teal'><big>T</big><small>ofutwitch11</small></span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Tofutwitch11|<
#'''Strong Oppose''' - Pending Changes protection is exactly what Wikipedia needs. The less vandalism that can be visible to the public; the better! [[User:Barts1a|Barts1a]] | [[User_Talk:Barts1a|Talk to me]] | [[User:Barts1a/complaints and constructive criticism|Yell at me]] 02:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - On the articles I watch that have it, it seems to be working just fine. On vandal patrol earlier today it prevented the entire contents of [[Harvard University]] from being replaced with this crap.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvard_University&diff=next&oldid=421590817] One more hurdle for vandals to overcome, and good edits can easily be approved and then implemented. [[User:Doc9871|<
#:I should note that [[Harvard University]] is exactly the type of page that I believe it works best on, per my earlier comments down below. While the page was probably being watched in any case, PC is extremely useful for pages like this that get maybe a few edits daily. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 15:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Alison and WereSpielChequers. -- '''''[[User:Lear's Fool|Lear's]] [[User Talk:Lear's Fool|Fool]]''''' 05:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 239:
#{{Not done|Ridiculously Strong Oppose}}: Pending changes works. It is a good alternative to semiprotection, and gives IP editors the power to edit the article without exactly editing it. --[[User:43?9enter|43?9enter]] <sup>[[User talk:43?9enter|☭msg]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/43?9enter|☭contribs]]</sub> 02:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' It works. It's good. This [[fetish]] of exalting process over substance is getting waaaaaay out of hand. And this from a guy who generally supports fetishes. For those who feel [[hoodwink]]ed by the way the trial wound up getting extended please [[WP:AGF]]. And I'll repeat from an earlier discussion the wisdom of the [[Seismology|seismologists]]: "SHIFT HAPPENS" [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 03:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose:''' It's a better way to keep away vandalism and other unsatisfactory edits. [[User:Bill william compton|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
#'''Oppose''' - As stated above previously, it is useful when pages are vandalised and is a system that has been shown to work. If it isn't broken, why fix it? [[User:Gb105|Gb105]] ([[User talk:Gb105|talk]]) 16:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#:[[#Response to GB105|Response here]]
#'''Oppose''' It is a good alternative to semiprotection, and gives IP editors the power to edit with going live with it [[User:Bentogoa|Bentogoa]] ([[User talk:Bentogoa|talk]]) 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' -- I don't see why it has to be removed in order for a decision to be made; that seems like red tape for the sake of red tape. — [[User:Anndelion|<
#'''Oppose''' I was recently granted reviewer rights and I expect to use them. Keep PC!--<
#'''Oppose''' useful tool even in short term. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 16:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This PC tool has been very useful, and I don't see a problem with keeping it. [[User:Creation7689|Creation7689]] ([[User talk:Creation7689|talk]]) 15:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' While not a perfect solution it is useful and I can see with some minor improvement being as handy as twinkle. [[User:Golgofrinchian|<b><
#'''Oppose''' It's a good start - scrapping it removes the testing and pressure for improvements, quite the opposite of the point. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 12:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 258:
There previously was concern that if we stopped using PC, the WMF would not permit us to later restart it. Steven Walling from the WMF has recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaldari&diff=419541719&oldid=419540349 made it clear] that we are free to stop using PC until we make a final decision. The only restriction is that should we decide to dismantle the infrastructure for PC, the foundation will not set it back up again. There is no need to be so drastic. The trial can be ended by merely removing PC from all articles. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 07:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, UncleDouggie is correct. Just to be super clear: what I'm trying to say (for the tech folks managing Pending Changes right now) is that the community has always and will always be free to just quit using Pending Changes if it wants. But we're only going to remove the extension entirely (and get rid of the rest of the infrastructure, such as the [[Software testing|test suite]]) until the community can show a clear consensus that it does not want to use the feature in the long run. If people want to end the trial and put a moratorium on use until that decision about the long run can be made, that's fine by us. <
::''But we're only going to remove the extension entirely ... until the community can show a clear consensus that it does not want to use the feature in the long run.''
::The "super clear" clarification actually leaves me more confused. By ''only'', did you really mean ''not''? By ''until'', did you really when ''if and when''? — [[User:Alarob|ℜob C.]] ''alias'' [[User_talk:Alarob|'''ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ''']] 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
:::No, Alarob, the extension will remain; the proposal is merely to remove PC from all articles with it until a final consensus can be gathered. —<
::''Question'': what about other Wikimedia-run wikis that are using PC? It is being used on English Wikinews and Wikibooks, and also on other language versions of Wikipedia. If English Wikipedia reject PC, does that mean the WMF are going to abandon all development and maintenance of PC and support of other projects if they want to use PC?
:::Don't be so naïve. Any decision on PC in en.wp will affect en.wp only. en.wn and en.wb willn't be affected. —<
::::I'm not being naïve. I'm asking a question: Steven is talking about getting rid of "the infrastructure" including the test suite. The question I'm asking is if English Wikipedia's possible rejection of PC will affect other projects? The Foundation haven't expressed themselves very clearly over the issue of PC, so I'm seeking clarification. <small>I also think calling me naïve for asking an honest question directed towards the Foundation shows an [[WP:AGF|AGF]] deficit.</small> —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 23:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::I think it's clear to everyone here that the WMF aren't going to abandon PC just because en.wp doesn't use it, hence why I called you naïve. It would be far too disruptive to the projects that use PC or FR to dismantle it entirely. —<
=== No big deal ===
Line 272:
This <s>poll</s>discussion really should be no big deal at all; a few hundred articles - a tiny test - brought to an end, so we can discuss things without them imposed on us. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 10:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC) <small>gah; even '''I'' am mistaking it for a poll; aargh <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
:I'm on the other side of the poll, just about, but I was under the impression that this poll would help determine consensus on the articles currently under PC. I think they're no big deal to be left on, and if the community agrees with me here - we should be able to move on and leave this point alone. If it agrees that they should be removed, we should be able to remove them, move on and leave this point alone. I'll be very glad when we can leave this point alone! [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
::The reason that it ''is'' a big deal if the trial continues is...it makes it extremely difficult to discuss. What's the point in our discussing e.g. "can it be used only on BLPs" when - right now - it is used on [[gout]]? We need a blank slate to work with. A large portion of the community is disillusioned with the entire process - because consensus has been disregarded. I'm not interested in recriminations, I just want us to 'clear the air'. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 10:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:::While in theory everyone could just forget that these articles exist and move on, in reality people don't work that way. As long as they exist with PC protection, they keep coming up in discussions and we get nowhere. It's terribly frustrating. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 10:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I hadn't spotted that it might actually preclude discussion on where to use it. That's a very good point, and I've moved to support. UncleDouggie, my thoughts were that you could always refer people to this consensus - which I'm hoping would be enough to move on either way. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
::::It ''shouldn't'' be hindering forward progress but apparently there are some who just can't discuss things hypothetically when they feel they've been betrayed. When this is all over it may be worth re-examining whose responsibility it actually was to remove it when the trial was over, that is a point that is still unclear to me. Was the Foundation supposed to do it automatically, or was someone from here supposed to tell them what we wanted done and that just never happened? I don't know but it as so many have mentioned rebuilding trust and feeling betrayed I think it is important that we establish who really "dropped the ball" in this affair. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 302:
:::::Neat argument - that means that nothing which ever attracts opposition should ever be tried because the people opposing the change will use up enough time that they can say ''the proposal itself has harmed Wikipedia.'' I had not thought of anyone proposing that logical argument! [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Two words: side effects. Drug trials sometimes show efficacy with the targeted condition but produce unintended new symptoms that are deemed worrisome enough to delay or even prevent the drug's approval. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 16:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Ok... so are we talking about the pharmaceutical industry or Wikipedia? You didn't specify any new symptoms or "side effects" that PC has caused. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
::::::::<small>How about, "Warning: PC may cause drowsiness, nausea and headaches"? <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 02:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::<small>I've been on WP so long today that my eye can't stop twitching every two minutes. I blame PC. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 02:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
Line 354:
{{xt|No page in the Wikipedia namespace should be protected under pending changes except those [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing|for testing]]}}
Notice, that page refers to the "February RfC". Yes, '''this''' RfC itself has now been running for {{
If you want PC to be used more widely then - perhaps paradoxically - the best chance for that to happen is to consent to closing down the trial. One step backwards, then two steps forwards.
Line 362:
:What we need now is either a consensus, or for the WMF to make an executive decision and have the community stick with it. Frankly, I don't care if the WMF says "PC on every page" now; I just want this waste of time ''over with''. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 02:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::The WMF has made it clear they will respect the communities decision on this issue. If my design for the next phase is allowed to proceed it should answer the yes/no question and allow us to publish a rough guideline to how it is to be used that can be refined into a finished policy as we work out the kinks. We can't expect to anticipate every possible issue beforehand, and as we all know no policy is ever perfect or truly "finished" but we should be able to cough up something usable at the end of this thing. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 04:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but I don't see how allowing the trial to continue prevents consensus to be formed about PC itself. They seem like entirely separate things. Could someone point to an example of how the trial has blocked debate about the future of PC? --[[User:JaGa|<b><
:::::They are entirely separate things. It is an obstacle that exists only in the minds of some users. Those users have succeeded in stalling discussion of the future while we discuss the present. The purpose of this RFC was supposed to be about the future but it has unfortunately been derailed despite my efforts to keep it on track. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::::A few recent examples are [[Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011/Archive_3#Phase_three_draft]], [[Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011#Re_Question_1]], [[Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011#Question_1]]. There have been dozens of similar problems that have consumed many man-months of effort in the past and resulted in the current limbo situation. Look at how hard it is just to discuss this simple proposal to end a two month trial in which there are only two possible outcomes. Image if there were four options instead of two, with complex interactions between them. What if we decide it's best to conduct a 2 day trial on some articles as a quick test of something? Oh right, that's not possible because we threw away all credibility by not stopping the last trial. The bottom line is that it's impossible to ask for community support for a proposal, and especially for a major change in policy, when you have demonstrated that you don't have respect for the processes used by the community. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 04:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 368:
:::::::The indentation of my comment made it clear that I was replying to JaGa, not to you. The diffs were examples of how hard it has been to make progress with the trial running, which was the question asked, and isn't your fault. My comment about not respecting the processes used by the community referred to the original question of "how allowing the trial to continue prevents consensus to be formed about PC itself." —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 21:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Replying to JaGa, in parallel with UncleDouggie. UncleDouggie sums it up pretty well. So far as I'm concerned, the refusal to stop the trial at the agreed upon date was an act of dishonesty, and means that I no longer trust assurances from people that have argued that continuing the trial was harmless. The only way I will ever approve another trial of a feature like this is if the software to automatically remove it at the end of the trial is included from the beginning. I won't even discuss the feature until the trial is stopped. How can I proceed in any kind of discussion with people that have already lied to me about the topic at hand? What's the point in reaching an agreement with people that don't honor their agreements?—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 22:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Honestly, I think allowing the trial to continue does no harm at all and is nothing to be taken personally. But, other editors feel very strongly that this trial should end, and that's causing a problem. Although I'm not convinced the trial does any harm to assessing PC, I'll withdraw my oppose to appease those who are delaying further action. --[[User:JaGa|<b><
::::::::I'm still not clear on whose responsibility it was to have it removed when the trial was over. The Foundation wouldn't have done so unless we told them to. Did we? Or did we all just assume somebody else was handling it? (I know I did) [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 375:
I am a very strong opponent of Pending Changes on a broad scale as it runs counter to what Wikipedia is about — being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I've been an opponent at every step of the way, but I tell ya, the TOOL of Pending Changes is a good one and it should not be abandoned for an extremely limited number of problematic articles. I was recently involved with a BLP that was the subject of protracted defamatory vandalism that was fast approaching a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not going to pretend to know how meritorious the potential suit was or its probable outcome, but I can assure you that a lawsuit WAS close. The biography was more or less fixed and Pending Changes installed as a tool to help protect a recurrence of the problem. PERFECT use of the tool... I loathe the idea that all, most, or many articles make use of Pending Changes, but you know what — if there are 1,000 problematic articles that need the protection to deflect potential lawsuits and the drain upon the foundation's resources that these would entail, win or lose, I'm TOTALLY fine with the honchos giving the middle finger to the community and keeping the tool in place until a final reckoning is made. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 04:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:The problem with that is in your paragraph: ''the honchos''. So far the WMF has not gotten involved, so absent their butting in, which is unlikely unless there's another Sigenthaler Incident, those arguing to keep PC on are arguing in a position that runs counter to ''two'' consensi. Jimbo has indicated he supports PC, but has also indicated he will submit to whatever consensus is made, so again there's been no official involvement.
:(Having been one until I surrendered the rights due to them including [[WP:Reviewers|a Robert King punching dummy]], I can tell you administrators have no practical political power on WP. This is turning more and more into a civil war.) —<
{{ec}}
::This is THE PROBLEM: we are not an encyclopedia that ANYONE CAN EDIT. Many aren't even able to. We aren't a blog that ANYONE CAN EDIT. We are an ENCYCLOPEDIA that has qualities, and these qualities get traffic, and this traffic attracts vandalism. Voluntary work has to work hard to write a quality paragraph. Instead of pushing and fillibusting, we should defend and improve the qualities of Wikipedia, defend and improve the tools we got to defend a Wikipedia with qualities. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 07:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 382:
::Yea, what we need is input from the community on when it is appropriate, and not appropriate, to use pc, not a hard limit on the number of articles. That would be no help at all. Very, very few users have indicated that they believe it should be applied on every article or even most articles so I wouldn't worry too much about that. The way things are leaning so far it looks like the community favors using it sparingly. We just need to define the criteria for using it as we have for the other forms of protection so that admins have some guidance on how it is to be applied. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 04:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, I did say I could think of an alternative. It has to do with raising the bar for autoconfirmed status. Precious few BLP-vandals would bother to wait several weeks and make ''x'' number (50? 100?) genuinely constructive edits, I think, before maliciously zeroing in on their target. A few really dedicated evildoers probably would jump through such hoops, but there's nothing to stop anyone that patient from getting reviewer status, either. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 05:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Precious few VOAs are autocon-busters as is. Usually, it's an [[WP:LOBU|LTA]] or accomplice of same, so upping the edit count hurts us more than it harms them, since they will quickly adapt. —<
:The articles currently under PC aren't the most problematic on Wikipedia by any means. They were just randomly selected for the trial with a little bit of guidance, such as using some articles that previously had semi-protection to see if we would get more constructive edits. During the actual trial, the most problematic articles had to be removed from PC and returned to semi-protection due to excessive vandalism. PC is doing next to nothing for us today on those 1000 articles. They are trial articles that will survive just fine without PC. This type of confusion is making it impossible for us to proceed. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 05:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:: I agree. Time to take off those articles with PC so that the discussion can move forward. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b
::I beg to differ. Offering Pending Changes protection to BLPs is something I've actively been doing in relation to BLP concerns expressed in OTRS. Probably done about 10-20 so far. It would be helpful if your statements were accurate. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 06:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::You could have just as easily semi-protected them. We have well over 100,000 BLPs. Do you really want to put them all under indefinite PC today given all the technical and policy shortcomings that have been identified? Talk about harming Wikipedia. The way to expand usage of PC is through consensus, not force. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 06:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 394:
Discussion of [[#Guy Macon|comment from Guy Macon]] moved here per the instructions. Comment mentioned the breaking of the promise for a time-limited trial.
:I agree with you. I do however believe, you've misidentified who and where promises were broken, attaching ill sentiment to the wrong antagonist. I think it is an honest mistake because this whole discussion is rot with false premise spawned by inappropriate interjections of innuendo and propaganda. If only we could know who think PC is useful and who think it has no purpose. By this poll I am convinced that some will support thinking they are supporting PC. It is as apparent now, as was said of the first straw poll, these results will not produce useful information. And it appears to have built in its own bias as well. Nothing at all like what I had hoped would emerge. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 05:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::Too late, My76; see Esuzu's comment above in this section. —<
:::This proposal is not directly related to supporting or opposing PC, thus any confusion is irrelevant. There are many PC supporters who are correctly supporting this proposal as a way to move us forward. If keeping the trial going was so great for PC, why is it still locked in limbo? —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 06:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::::In my oppose, I stated a desire to support this compromise. The reason I can not, is; It builds on a premise I do not accept. (will not) That is: I must concur that the trial ended months ago, continued without consensus, and concur that Jimbo is shown as a liar. Well I don't agree with those sentiments, I have stated why, and I have refuted them. Requiring me to adopt them as my own, creates the impasse. If the language simply stated we would like to suspend its use to facilitate discussion without distraction, I would support. I can be seen advocating such a compromise. To support a proposition which adds my name to a group who believe lies have been directly told is beyond good faith for my support. To one last point, when the idea of reaching a compromise was first being seriously considered, I was given the impression the subsequent trial would be guaranteed, not diluted to a possibility. Now I see that if this proposal advances, I can add it to my list of pipe dreams. Because it is a last stand, I will stand where I believe the best for Wikipedia is served. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 08:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 434:
:See [http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/106702/match=60-day%20trial+At%20the%20end%20of%20that,+unless%20the%20community%20clearly%20requests%20otherwise+we%27ll+turn%20it%20back%20off] <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 03:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::Oh, a mailing list post. I do hate stuff kept off wiki. Anyway, we did request an extension, did we not? Regardless, I see no reason to shut off a useful tool because of hurt feelings. —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] <small>([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]])</small> 04:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::We did request an extension - that expired 12/31/2010. And of course that deadline's been dodged so much I will be amazed if '''anyone''' will support '''any''' trial in the future. —<
::::The extension did not expire 12/31/2010 unless there was a delay in implementing the changes. I observed the implementation of changes so the effect of that date is irrelevant. Suggestions that there were not the things that were, is disconcerting. For example the 65% who were discounted as the significant group necessary for continuation after the trial. Or the 60% who supported continuation again, allowing if nothing was improved by December, we would turn it off and start over. Improvements were released prior to December, the trial did continue with significant consensus. This discussion is framed to validate these misconceptions and therefor is not a compromise at all. And I feel sure 65% would be called significant as long as it is related to turning it off. And what do we do if this proposal falls short of the 80% range which so many have suggested. Call it no consensus, Then what? [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 04:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::I don't think '''anyone''' at this point - pro or con - is even advocating aiming at 80%. I've seen more the 60-75% range as the target (I myself prefer 66% as the fairest to both sides, due to the issue's divisiveness). —<
::::::I agree. It would better derive as accepted consensus if the straw poll wasn't disregarded as insignificant, while accusing an unauthorized continuation. Each requisite milestone was achieved, the trial is not running against consensus. There is a wolf in sheep's attire appealing to good commonsense while looking rather nonthreatening. I think the wolf hopes to receive the advantage of these reasonable minds, but has intentions to scoff at them for gullibility. I require better than that. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 05:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
{{Od|::::::}}
Line 448:
===Response to History2007===
Discussion of [[#History2007|comment from History2007]] moved here per the instructions. Comment mentioned that more tools are needed to manage the "''untenable trend towards progressive increase of the effort spent by the most active authors''" to maintain quality.
:Except that maintaining any objective form of "quality" is nigh-on impossible (not to mention a very slippery slope into [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]), especially on subjects that attract polemics. [[Silvermoon's Law]] applies here: The idiot-proof has already been bested by idiots. In fact, when the trial was being debated, it was all but unanimously decided that PC was not to be used for "quality control" short of removing obvious vandalism or on BLPs (which are also susceptible to extremely subjective "quality" as notable people will sue at the drop of a hat for even sourced negative press). —<
::No, I can not agree with you. I see the very existence of Pending Changes as a deterrent to vandalism in general, given that the person making the change knows that it will not go un-noticed. In my experience vandals hope their changes go un-noticed, With Pending changes that hope evaporates away. And I see Pending changes as the first step in starting to make Wikipedia protect itself. That thesis I linked to was valid and we are seeing those effects now. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 07:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::This is an issue for the long-term usage of PC. It is irrelevant for ending the trial, but is a perfect example why having short-term and long-term issues intermixed is killing us. The issues surrounding long-term usage of PC are complicated and we need to be able to discuss them without the old trial hanging over us. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 07:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 480:
:::::There doesn't need to be a stalemate. What true harm is being done by leaving PC on articles that they are currently on, while things are being reviewed? I submit that not only is there truly no harm being done, and it has the potential to prevent harm. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 08:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::You're correct that there doesn't need to be a stalemate if we were all logical beings that could separate such things in our heads. But human nature is such that it is a problem. I make no statement of why that is, it's just my observation of the facts on the ground. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 08:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::And that is exactly why I can never support PC - it assumes too much of Wikipedia's editors, and in most cases extremely incorrectly. —<
::::::I personally don't think PC is a good idea in general, having seen the experiences at de-wiki, but the main point is that this is not a discussion about PC in general, so comments like "lose momentum" or "rob us of a tool" are simply misplaced and thus not a good foundation to build your argument on. I am realist enough to know that PC probably can't be stopped anymore but if the community wants to implement it, then at least it should be done with a clear policy, not an indefinitely-prolonged trial. The point of a "trial" is that it ends and is then evaluated. If you continue the trial during the review, you cannot possibly review the results in any objective manner because the continued use will continually generate new data, which in then has to be reviewed, leading to an infinite loop that cannot be completed. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 08:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 580:
::::Yes I agree the comments look like they might be confused but this doesn't mean that they are, but besides support for PC isn't necessarily an invalid reasoning for opposing the end of the trial. I must admit though that I originally mis-read Chzz's point, nowhere do they suggest that it's only the opposed votes that might be biased by their opinion of PC. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 09:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Wait, wait—this RfC is not about ''ending the trial''. The trial is over, and has been since August 2010, when a) it was scheduled to end, and b) when data stopped being regularly collected. We are currently in an interim period where PC is on but guidelines on its current and future usage are unclear, and this RfC was started in the hopes that PC might be turned off until a new trial or proposal or whatnot can be formed. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 20:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::<shrug>Trials aren't over just because they're scheduled to be over, but your second point (about data collection) makes sense. Who knows? It probably is emblematic of the depth of disagreement over PC that consensus doesn't exist even on as seemingly basic a question as whether the trial has ended. But I can't see that it makes much difference either way. Clearly, many editors understood that PC would not continue to be applied after the scheduled trial period without consensus. Whether continued application of PC constitutes an extension of the trial is really sort of a moot point, isn't it? I'll cheerfully agree to disagree.<p>About the possible confusion of some participants in this phase: while some additional boldface in the proposal description might have been nice, the wording is perfectly clear. I confess to holding little sympathy for anyone who weighs in to support or oppose a proposal without making quite sure what the proposal proposes. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 05:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)</p>
::::::I just used the word "trial" when I possibly should have used more precise language. But the fact that PC remains in use on a number of articles is, in my opinion, a good thing. I personally don't think PC should be turned off, whether it was originally scheduled to be or not. I think it is a good thing for wikipedia and a good thing for the articles it is currently protecting. I hear your arguments for removing PC (even if only temporarily) but I disagree that it is necessary to do so. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 08:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::It isn't just necessary. It's ''vital'' to remove PC. A consensus was formed to start it on a certain date and to stop it (as in really stop it - no weasel words about the trial being "ended" while PC is still in effect on multiple pages) after a specified period of time. Continuing it without seeking a new consensus to do so is a violation of trust that has already harmed Wikipedia. [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 01:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 586:
===Response to MC10===
''(section moved from above by'' —<
#:From your comment, it appears as though you advocate keeping it on because you see it as useful now, not because there's some reason to keep it going to trial it, and that you don't see the current implementation as a trial at all, instead being an actual use of PC, having been snuck through the back door without full consensus, and you're perfectly fine with this and think it should continue. Is this correct? --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
#::user Yair rand, your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Yair+rand&namespace=0 nine edits to article space in the last three months] are greatly appreciated but please allow editors to comment, you can discuss your experiences with pending protection, you don't appear to have any experience with pending protection, if you actually have any, on the talkpage. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 00:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#:::Do you have reason to debase someone's experience based merely on [[WP:editcount|editcount]]? [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<
#:::I have had essentially no direct experience with PC, but I don't think that prohibits me from asking a question to a user who posted their opinion in this ''discussion''. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 01:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#:I have the same request for clarification on MC10's comment that Yair rand has made above. I hope that my 1200 article space edits over the last 3 months is deemed sufficiently worthy to participate in this discussion. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#::Probably not. Off2riorob has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage#Unintended_consequences.3F objected to my participation in these discussions in the past on the same basis], and that was after I hit 45,000 edits. Apparently, they have to be very special edits that experience the editing flow in the way a normal editor would before your opinion counts for much.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 05:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#:::I think it was clear from the first poll that O2RR has a bias for PC, much like I'm biased against. —<
#::::Yes, apparently [[WP:ADHOM|very special edits]]. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<
#:::Off2riorob has no business telling people whether or not they can participate. If a participant's comments are deemed unsubstantive by the people organizing the consensus, that is their call, not his. Further, I just cast my !vote above, be it as it may. I still think removing it from BLP can do more harm than good if someone comes along the next day and puts libelous information in the article. While it's in the edit history always, it's less likely to be noticed if someone quietly shuffles it aside with PC, and we can always surpress those conflicting edits as well in extreme cases. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#::::I am opposing because it is currently being employed on low-traffic BLPs, and its protection is quite necessary. Semi-protection prevents IPs and newer users from being able to edit the page. I do think that we should continue employing its use (or at least stop adding more pages to its protection) until a final discussion results in a decision one way or another. And by the way, I don't think Off2riorob should be asking people to stop others from commenting; edit count usually doesn't mean much. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—[[User:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">mc10</span>]] ([[User talk:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">t</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/MC10|<span style="color:#000000">c</span>]])</span> 14:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 641:
::That proposal calls for yet more studie. I don't understand what questions those studies are supposed to answer. See [[analysis paralysis]]. I think there is enough info by now to say yes (turn it on permanently) or no (turn it off permanently). Saying "yes" should not require a [[Big Design Up Front]]. Just turn it on and figure out through experience how to use it. [[Special:Contributions/75.57.242.120|75.57.242.120]] ([[User talk:75.57.242.120|talk]]) 06:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
So closing this has gone nowhere so far for various reasons. Newyorkbrad was asked, but he's very busy with ArbCom stuff. I just asked WJBScribe to do so, since he offered before as a 'crat. If neither of those things happens soon we should act ourselves. <
:I would like to see if one of them will still come through to set a better precedent for handling PC related RfCs. They are both uninvolved, highly respected and no one has raised any objections to having them perform the close. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 07:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
::I'll second that. A status update would be nice, but I think we can afford to be patient. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 16:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 656:
:Problem: What ''is'' the status quo? PC is on c. 1000 pages, but there's no policy to support it (nor any demonstrable consensus for it). Can it be used? Added to more articles? Who knows. It ''is'' being. Can it be used on non-BLPs, on articles with no history of vandalism? Can admins remove it from existing articles, because there is no consensus for its use? Nobody seems to know. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 16:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
::Well why not suspend all discussion of it for the time being and focus our efforts on forming an interim policy for its use and then revisit it in a year? There are cases where it is unambiguously useful. There are also cases where its usefulness is doubtful, so working out how to get the best use from it would be far more beneficial than attempts to drive a stake through its heart. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<
:Eraserhead1, have you actually read what this RFC is about? It's ''not'' for removing PC permanently. It's for removing the current usage temporarily so we can move on and discuss its ''actual'' implementation. Sheesh. Whether or not it is useful is not the question here, it's whether or not you guys are interested in writing up scope and guidelines at all or if you're all just planning to wing it forever on a '''trial-that-doesn't-end™''' --'''<span style="font-family:century gothic">[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#000">Obsidi<span style="color:#c5c9d2">♠</span>n</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#c5c9d2">Soul</span>]]</sup></span>''' 17:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 663:
HJ, but what does 'suspend discussion' mean in reality? Can admins still apply it on new articles? Can anyone request removal when it is inappropriate? How can that work? Or are you suggesting we say "don't add, remove, or do anything"? Believe me - I am totally open to ideas, of any kind. I'm as keen as anyone to sort out this mess of crap. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 17:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
:I'm suggesting we put the discussion on hold and try to form a workable policy for the use of PC, giving guidance to admins on when to apply and remove it and to non-admins on when to request its application/removal. We can prohibit the addition or removal of PC while we try to come up with a policy that hopefully gets the best use out of PC and ends this damn limbo. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<
As of this edit, there are 111 editors in support and 50 editors opposed to the ending of the pending changes trial and the temporary removal of pending changes protection from all articles. Percentage-wise, just short of 69% of editors who have spoken are in favor of the proposition. I think that, on such a contentious issue, greater than 66.7% support should be considered consensus. I also think that a no-consensus close will ensure that pending changes remains in limbo until this same subject is put up for another !vote in six months.
Line 686:
:::::::::My point was that while holding an endless discussion may not be against policy that it doesn't really prove anything, I'm sorry for being unclear. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 23:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
No consensus? So the opinions of the many editors who participated should be set aside in favor of a brief discussion thread? As SoWhy said a bit above, it's pretty obvious what the community has said here. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
:Well, going by Grondemar's analysis, if this were an RfA, it would be closed as non consensus. I think this is much more important than a discussion over whether to appoint a single administrator, so why should we have a lower majority? Also, simple head-counting is not consensus. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<
HJ: If you can make a proposal that you think can gain consensus - whatever it is - go for it. Please do. Whether that is 'no consensus to remove', 'consensus to add it to all articles', whatever. I don't care. I'll support ANY proposal I believe might have a realistic chance of community support. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 22:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 710:
:::::::::I've commented there. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 17:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
*There was never consensus to continue with PC after the trial. There is now a two-thirds consensus to remove it from articles for now, and this is the usual standard for consensus; comparing it to the higher standard needed for RfA isn't appropriate. [[User:SlimVirgin|<
** I have to agree with this, my concern was that the consensus in this case was invalid due to too much [[WP:DEADHORSE]] beating regardless of the percentages involved. Not that the percentage isn't high enough for a consensus. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 22:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
::We already have the only consensus we need to stop the trial now: it's in last year's "two-month extension" debate. Stopping is automatic unless there is a further consensus to extend. Do the ''oppose'' statements above outweigh ''support'' enough to form a consensus to extend? I think not. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 12:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 747:
:::@Both, lets be clear that by "common sense" I mean that they will do exactly the same as on their watchlists. If pending changes is causing them to introduce BLP issues, then they'll do exactly the same on their watchlists.
:::And frankly if everyone who wants to be involved is involved what would be the issue with adding a link to Special:Pending Changes? This motion would still pass, and it would be more legitimate. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 17:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Only Reviewers would be looking at that page, however. A watchlist notice, while not perfect (as it misses IPs) can attract a far more varied audience. —<
::::Eraserhead1, you should probably have your rights removed if refuse to read the guidelines. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 18:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::::<small>''(edit conflicts) ''</small>It's a little late in the game. While I empathize with editors whose real-life commitments have kept them out of the loop, I don't think there's any way that can be helped. There was a watchlist notice for a long time, there was mention in the ''Signpost'', and there were notices on the centralized discussion and community portal pages. (There probably were other notices as well.) It would be inappropriate at this time to start soliciting new comments on a widely publicized, well-attended RfC that has been open for weeks. And btw, I'm a bit unnerved by your casual attitude toward reading guidelines. How can anyone who hasn't bothered to read a given guideline contribute meaningfully to a discussion about the same? [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 18:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 755:
:::::Experienced users would not need to read the reviewers guidelines to review any edit - they already totally know how to review an edit and have been doing it every time they log on. Erasures comments are insightful and I totally agree with them. As he/she has mentioned - the advantages of pending are perhaps only known and understood by truly involved contributors such as him/her - on some pages that were previously vandal magnets only supportable by indefinite semi protection the disruptors have realized the valueless of their attempt to disrupt the article and some such articles have become almost vandal free - easily protected by a few experienced watchers. I have the feeling that we may find out more when the articles are removed from pending than is easily to be accurately reflected by requests for data from the trial, requests for data specifics are just a red herring - an impossible request, how must vandalism and libel has the tool stopped from being published by en wikipedia is an unanswerable question, as I previously said - the question of how beneficial has been this protection is perhaps easier to see when that protection is removed. Personally - all I am bothered about is protecting living peoples bios and that the primary goal of as open to contribute as possible interface - I can sacrifice one and if our options to protect articles is diminished by the removal of the pending protection tool from the box, I will be requesting admins support wider liberal long term semi protection of any BLP attacked without speedy correction of a vandal/defamation addition. I don't care how we do it but '''stiki users and recent changes pattrollers are not keeping defamation, libel attacks or vandalism against living people out of articles and we need to deal with that and stop people being long term defamed and libeled through this project.''' [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::Yes, but that is *at present*, where there's a 7.5:1 ratio between reviewers and articles. As I've noted, even applying to BLPs alone will cause the number of articles covered to skyrocket to upwards of 518,000, IIRC, for a ratio of ~1:69, assuming the number of reviewers remains static. —<
:::::::So lets start indefinitely semi protecting any BLP article that is defamed, libeled or vandalized and that attack content published and mirrored all over the www via this project is not removed within say, forty eight hours. I came to the position during the discussion that if pending was accepted that it should not be widely added like that to all BLP articles but just added as and when required, personally at current reviewer activity I feel that 50,000 low activity articles would be easily manageable, but with rejection of the tool, I will move to support liberal long term semi protection for any BLP that is left with attack content as stated above. Two very similar articles, [[Peter Mandelson]] indefinitely semi protected, [[George Osbourne]] pending protected - both completely stable - which is a more open editing environment for unconfirmed editors? It is unquestionably pending protection. If pending protection is removed from Osbourne the only future for that BLP is indefinite semi protection. While pending protection has been available to help protect the articles especially in relation to living people I have used it and found it extremely beneficial and if it is switched off nothing will change, I will continue to protect living people from defamation any way I can using whatever tools remain. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC) [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Then start reining in your own herd, Off2RioRob; I have seen a disordinate amount of "All BLPs" arguments on the same rationale you just gave. —<
{{outdent}}
I think applying to ''all'' BLP's would be overkill - and something I'm against, but what Off2riorob says sounds reasonable suggestion. We cannot allow defamation to stick around for ages as a mature project.
Line 795:
Pending changes for all articles would definitely be overkill. I think even for all BLP's its overkill. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 21:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
:Mind u all: we aren't an encyclopedia that ANYONE CAN EDIT. We aren't a blog of nonsense that anyone can edit. Wikipedia is many ENCYCLOPEDIAS with qualities, these qualities gets traffic, this traffic attracts vandalism. Vandalism doesn't need verifiability, reliable source, neutral point of view, notability, and goes LIVE. These QUALITIES need protection, otherwise we disappear... --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 03:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
::Even with such protection editor flight will kill us far faster than vandalism will, Chris. Can't have an encyclopedia without editors. —<
:::I don't mind Sports & Entertainment. But I do think we are drowning on BLPs and Science. I do think too, that PC by default is over the top. But de:wikipedia is surviving and has quality, almost no kiddy or ill vandalism goes live, that is nice. Checks and balances, what shall we do ??? If we do nothing, then we disappear. If we are too tight, then we don't get the new editors that we need. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 08:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
::::de.wp has a culture entirely different from en.wp. The same can be said for any other WP in relation to any other WP. —<
:::::Generally cultural differences are always vastly outweighed by cultural similarities. I doubt its different with Wikipedia. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 21:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::I agree. But on the otherside, the American way of life of a self-made man has clubs a lil bit more open than the German and British ones...--[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 14:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 814:
:::As long as it stays up for the remaining 9 days I think that is reasonable. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill :). -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 19:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, please leave the RfC open for 30 days.
:::::Actually, this RfC has been running for {{
::::::All three parts, yes. I think they mean just this phase. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 929:
:No, but endorsement by 66% of editors does... [[User:TotientDragooned|TotientDragooned]] ([[User talk:TotientDragooned|talk]]) 14:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:Deleting material from one place and placing an updated version in a section by itself is not "repeating stuff." [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 15:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
::When half those editors - namely those NOT quoted, I could do this too - are only supporting this proposal because they feel they have no choice if they want to see PC eventually be fully implemented? Also, Totient, this is not a vote. This is a consensus discussion. The numbers above mean nothing in the end. I feel bad for [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] for having to make a ruling on this in the coming days, but given how many of the people commenting in the Support and Oppose sections have not commented since then, I don't know if they can be considered as part of the consensus discussion. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 15:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)}}
Line 962:
===Quotations regarding how Pending Changes helps===
The following quotes are comments that prove PCs usefulness to Wikipedia in general and constitute keeping the system in place.
*''I say keep the pending changes on the articles they're on. It appears to be doing no harm, indeed even helping on them. Now we've seen pending changes working, removing them seems like a step backwards.''
*''The suggestion is akin to having automatic starters removed from cars after they were proven to work. Ot [sic] to removing a new medicine from patients in a clinical trial when the medicine was proven effective for their illness. Pending changes has been proven to reduce vandalism and BLP violations. All it is is "removal for the sake of removal" which makes precious little sense at all.''
| |||