Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Getting started: dunno |
|||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
▲{{talkheader|wp=yes|search=yes}}
{{tmbox
| image = [[File:WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg|40px]]
| small =
| text = This discussion was featured in [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-16/Discussion report|a Discussion Report]] in the ''[[Wikipedia:Signpost|Signpost]]'' on 16 April 2012. It was written by {{#if: | [[User talk:Whenaxis|Whenaxis]] and | [[User talk:Whenaxis|Whenaxis]] }}. If you wish to get involved with the ''Signpost'', please visit [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom|the Newsroom]].
}}
== Moving forward ==
Line 7 ⟶ 11:
Thanks kindly to the closers for putting so much time and thought into this, it's not like you don't have other wiki-duties. If this is on the wrong page now that the main RFC is over, please tell me where the right page is. As I mentioned above, I think the way forward is to put together working groups of like-minded people. And, I think with an issue with this much history, the much-maligned RFC process is actually useful ... without a deadline, without being able to say "Yes, that's a good argument, but I have to base my close on the arguments given during the RFC, so ...", arguments will forever sprout like [[lernean hydra|hydra]] heads. I would love to see a series of short, focused RFCs between now and November 1. To the closers: are any or all of you available to close future RFCs? To any of the Option 1 guys who are dubious concerning the close: what would you want to see in future closes that would convince you that these, or any, closers are taking your concerns seriously? (I'm not judging, I'm asking your opinions.) - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 08:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
:<small>I have archived the previous discussion, on the assumption that this talk page will be used to plan the next step for PC. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 08:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)</small>
::I think all four of us need a week or two to go do some low-profile article writing, but without speaking for the other three admins here I'm happy to help with future RfCs as necessary. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
:::While I will probably be watching future PC discussions, I don't believe I will be stepping up to close another. My feeling is that with policy-based closures like PC, you don't want the same people doing the same job on the same topic more than once. Fresh eyes and minds are important. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 17:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I personally don't plan on closing anything PC related anytime soon. Fluffy has a point about fresh eyes, this is a community target, that means fresh community eyes should be able to close a policy RfC, not putting this on a few people who now could be viewed as supporters of PC (which does not highlight an opinion as I don't have one yet), and making possible arguments for possible biased opinion. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<
===View of a dubious "Option 1 guy"===
Line 20 ⟶ 24:
::The reason I'm climbing on board the next RFC (I hope ... if no one objects, I'll assume that I'm on board in a few days) is that I believe we can do a lot better than we've done with these RFCs, and I want to explore and document that. Limiting the number of threads is important, as you say, and there are a variety of ways to tackle that. When people can see that the point they want to make is already on a list of points the closers have promised to cover before any decisions get made, they're more likely to be patient. The main thing that causes threads to balloon is when two people who don't trust each other and don't see things the same way keep going at each other. So, I'd like to encourage people to start out working mainly with people who agree with you. Try to suggest and perform experiments to prove your case. (I'll make suggestions on how you might do that as we go along.) The best time to confront the opposition is when you have data and other people backing you up. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 00:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:::My idea about having co-ordinators is related: my thought was that everyone who generally has a similar viewpoint could co-ordinate their discussion points through one co-ordinator, who would then make any required changes to the page hosting the discussion. (If you haven't already read it, the proposal I linked to has a little bit more detail on this in the context of an arbitration case.) [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 00:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
::::It may be prudent to outline a series of RFC stages, such that first we can focus on creating and refining concrete proposals, and then move on to a the normal support/oppose consensus determinations on the fleshed out proposals. [[User:Monty845|<
==Suggestions for primary switch on ==
*(1) - I would like to suggest we just switch it on and allow it to be used as we use semi and full - as and when requested on individual articles - just as another tool in the box to help us protect articles. This will also allow a slow and steady start and progressive usage so as to avoid suddenly having excessive reviewing work. I think there was enough experience gained in the trial that users know more or less when and where is is beneficial. [[User:Youreallycan|<
* (2) - What about automatically adding it at creation of all new [[WP:BLP]] or <nowiki>{{BLP other}}</nowiki> articles - when the Living template is added to the talkpage? [[User:Youreallycan|<
*(3) - What about adding it to a a thousand of the current least watched [[WP:BLP]] articles, and if that is not an excessive amount of work we could add it to the next thousand - and keep adding a thousand until reviewing work increases unduly - [[User:Youreallycan|<
I would support either the first or second position, with preference to the second here.--<span style="">[[User:Gilderien|Gilderien]] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">[[User talk:Gilderien|Chat]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gilderien|List of good deeds]]</span></span> 14:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
:The second one would allow all new articles of living people to get pending protection and the less notable ones would then get attention and additional eyes at start up and the protection levels could be changed or removed moving forwards when its clear if the articles need it or need semi or no protection at all. I imagine a combination of suggestions would be the best, bits of one and bits of another - If you have a suggestion please add it. Thank you. [[User:Youreallycan|<
*I think the first option is the best starting point, it will allow admins to apply it to the articles most in need on a case by case basis, will allow a slow ramp up of the process, and will allow us to get re accustomed to pending changes. Once it has been active for awhile, we may want to consider option 2 or 3, but I think planning to go immediately to either of them will cause unnecessary controversy. [[User:Monty845|<
**Yes, you make an interesting point. As we know there is a sizeable opposition to the tool we could '''only allow it to be requested via [[WP:RFPP]] ''' and through discussion here and in a RFC, work out some guide for good editing violations/situations to request it under. [[User:Youreallycan|<
:::Have to agree, option one would be best. PC should be considered not as an entity unto itself but as one of several page protection options. We saw during the trial that in some cases it is not the appropriate tool for the job, such as very high volume pages or very long articles. We also saw that it is sometimes a better option in some situations where semi protection would traditionally be applied. The trick is going to be coming up with guidance to help admins decide which is best in any given situation. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 48 ⟶ 52:
Another point brought up on the talk page which certainly needs to be clarified is what should a reviewer do when they see an edit that is proposed that is in good faith, does not violate any specific policies, but which they nonetheless disagree with. I think this scenario is the crux of the argument that reviewers will be part of a class structure. If they reject such an edit, they are doing so as an ''editor'' not as a reviewer. Like all tools it should not be used to gain an advantage in a content dispute, but that puts us in a position of asking users to accept edits they do not believe are beneficial. It's a pretty sticky situation and we need to come up with some clear, specific guidance for reviewers in such a situation or this will almost certainly be the area of PC use that causes the most problems. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
:This is an important part of the discussion. I put it under its own header , I hope you don't mind - feel free to revert if you feel it doesn't warrent it - [[User:Youreallycan|<
{{ec}}:I agree with almost all of your points and would add the following
::*The standards reviewers should use when reviewing an edit
::*Standards for removal of the right
:To start with, your comment regarding what reviewers should do with edits they disagree with is actually more of a symbolic question, yet if not handled properly is likely to cause alot of strife. The bureaucratic approach is that a reviewer must approve the disagreeable edit with their reviewer hat on, and then revert the now approved edit as a regular editor. Its a functionally pointless extra step, as declining the change would have the same result, but will lend it self to the class structure complaint. As to the first point, anyone with either a specified number of edits, OR demonstrated competency in a place like [[WP:FAC]] or [[WP:AFD]] should be presumed eligible and granted the right on request. The presumption of eligibility could then be overriden if there is a serious problem in their editing history related to BLP/Copyvio/etc. While reviewing, teviewers should be expected to catch blatant violations and to look more carefully for the specific problem the page was protected for, but not be expected to exentsively vet a change against every possible problem. If they don't see a major policy violation they should approve and then make changes as approriate as a regular editor. Finally, the right should only be removed if there is a clear pattern of bad reviewing, or if an admin has discussed a specific reviewing issue with the reviewer and its clear that even after the discussion the reviewer does not understand a core policy related to PC. [[User:Monty845|<
::I think we are currently more in a mode of planning what the next discussion will be about, not actually ''having'' the discussion yet. A new RFC or other discussion at [[WP:RVW]] is probably where the actual discussion will take place. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
* There is substantial opposition to this "feature". I think that those opposing, and a significant fraction of those supporting, should favor a standard equivalent to that in de.wikipedia, where any editor with 300 edits automatically possesses the reviewer right. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 22:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
:*Nobody should be using edit counts alone for determining if someone is fit to hold a role with significant ramifications for its use - including Reviewer, Rollback, and Edit Filter Manager. That is the best way to assure that someone who has '''zero''' business using the tool acquires it. What good is having no backlog when half the people abuse it and the other half are chasing bad with good? —
== The consensus ==
Line 62 ⟶ 66:
With the opposition to Position #1 so high, this is really surprising. I understand that the strength of the argument matters, but I don't believe that it's wise to alienate 30% – 40% of the community. This is simply begging for civil war (or at least many, many retirements). --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 14:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
:Yes well, we have to move forwards, lets hope the sky doesn't fall in . I am sure it won't. - Better to focus on the section above, what/were/articles we implement the decision on.[[User:Youreallycan|<
::Personally, I'm not going to try to gather complex data and have complex discussions with 300 people, all expressing different opinions; that doesn't work. For me, Step One is finding out who will close the next relevant RFC. I can understand if some of the Option 1 guys may wonder if they're going to be heard, so let's deal with that issue. Guys, what would you need to hear from potential closers to satisfy you that they're going to do a good job of listening to your concerns? When that's settled and I know who I'm trying to make a case to, there are some things I want to say about how we can make the process faster, more productive, and more inclusive. Michael makes a good point that one of the top priorities should be making changes that can bring as many people on board as possible. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 15:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Dank, I have no illusions that anyone will be heard. This will become a free-for-all, with admins randomly adding this to any article they personally think is appropriate, and the bigger issue is how to deal with the wheel wars that will come when it's clear that the policy doesn't match the practice. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but I'll simply point to what happened when we activated revision deletion. My own observation is that at least 30% of revision deletions don't meet the requirements of the deletion policy. Haven't had a single case brought to Arbcom, though. It's just one more way for admins to push their own points of view. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 75 ⟶ 79:
::::::::::I don't think this type of restricted discussion should be used for just any old discussion though, only for cases like this where we already tried it the other way and repeatedly failed to arrive at an actionable result. I actually originally proposed this approach near the end of the last RFC, I waited a year for someone else to come up with a better idea, and nobody did, so this is what went forward. It is certainly not intended as a model for all future discussions. I actually would have preferred my other idea of a [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Review Recommend phase|questionaire filled out by each participant]], but there was a lot of trouble coming to an agreement as to what the questions should be. Maybe we could dust off that approach in the coming months, it could be useful in identifying exactly what tweaks and improvements are needed for the policy. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Please link the "Draft policy" referenced above. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 18:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::[[Wikipedia:Pending Changes]] - isn't this it? - [[User:Youreallycan|<
{{Outdent}}
No. Go to [[Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012/Option_2]] and click the "show" link. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 18:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 101 ⟶ 105:
I'm linking this new section from Blade's announcement of the results at [[WP:AN]] to invite any admins interested in closing the next round to come throw their hats in; if we get more than we need, then I invite anyone who has an opinion on who we need (or don't need) to comment here. I see above that Blade is available and Fluffernutter is not. I'm available; I've been following this, I've been asked, and I think I can be helpful, but we'll see. I agree with Rivertorch's statement above that 4 months feels like not a lot of time, given the job ahead. So I think we need to get moving on the next mini-RFC, starting with selecting the next closers. I would prefer for the closers to be more proactive for the next round that closers normally are; I think success (or failure) is going to come after investing a lot of time in listening to everyone who has a beef. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 19:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
:No objection to you and Blade, I agree with User:Flutternutter that fresh eyes are needed - but if an admin feels fresh and still willing to contribute and there are no objections then I don't see any problem with that. - [[User:Youreallycan|<
::I'm not convinced that we need to sign up people to close these "mini-RFCs" now. For one thing, I don't think it's practical: we don't know how many there will be, or how many of them will actually require a formal closure, and therefore how many people will needed to close them. For another, I doubt that they will be "miniature" in any sense, especially since the sore losers from the previous one will try to re-fight the will-we-or-won't-we battle all over again. And finally, I'm not convinced that an RFC is always the best way to handle the majority of the issues that we might want to sort out in advance. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 117 ⟶ 121:
*Like protection, PC should only be used indefinitely as a last resort. It's hard to remember to check up on something a couple of months later, so the default should be that each use will have an expiry.
I'm sure I'll think of more. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
::Ah thanks for your comments - I would note that your link to the discission about [[User:Wnt]] is not linking to the discussion - could you please see if you can correct that - thanks - Personally - imo - any user that vocally and repeatedly rejects primary wikipedia policy such as [[WP:BLP]] as the day the project died as [[User:Wnt]] does, should not hold [[WP:reviewer]] status, but this is a good topic to discuss and resolve here and has been opened above in the [[Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012#The_reviewer_right]] section. Regards - [[User:Youreallycan|<
:::You can use [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User:Scott_MacDonald/Removal_of_reviewer_rights_from_User:Wnt&oldid=430325076 this], if you prefer, it's the last edit before the page was changed to a redirect. Your attitude there, that an editor should be penalized for holding an unpopular position (but does not ''act'', against consensus, on that position, just argues for it), is exactly my fear in bringing this up. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I didn't have an "attitude there" - I objected to the [[User:Wnt]]'s desired content additions - his desired additions were strongly rejected - I support the removal of advanced permissions from all users that vocally object to, or refuse to accept current wiki policy as "the day the project died" - saying that - I personally wouldn't take it off them until they specifically made a violating review/content addition and would be happy for [[User:Wnt]] to have the right replaced under this position. A position of, although I object to and vocally reject [[WP:BLP]] policy I will not violate it .. sort of declaration would be more than satisfactory and I think I can remember him saying such in a discussion with me.[[User:Youreallycan|<
:::::Passing PC is bad - how bad depends on several factors. If reviewer rights are granted to every editor with over 300 edits, like on de.wikipedia, then it will do less to put a few users in power over others; but I think that would be contrary to its intended purpose. If reviewer rights at least depend on ability to follow policy, then at allegations based on POV disputes will be limited to the usual wikilawyering. But if they are given and taken based solely on ideology, we skip straight to the battleground. In a similar manner, it is worse if applied to many articles, or applied at Level 2, than if it is applied more rarely (provided that the comments about stealth level 2 via non-processing of IP comments don't turn out to have truth to them). It may be that Wikipedia can learn its mistake here only after it loses its reputation and readership as the general public rebels against biased and censored content; more likely, these lessons are for new sites as yet unfounded to benefit from. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 01:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::It must be a tremendous burden to carry that much lament. I am curious; at what point or series of benchmarks would you realize; sufficiently to admit your visions of imminent peril were unfounded and/or that collapse is no longer the looming consequence that you freely predict today? [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 03:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 133 ⟶ 137:
(Perhaps I should have split this post up into multiple sections... Meh.) --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 16:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:From purely a closer's perspective, while 61% on its face is a small minority, in this case it was over 300 people, so it's all on how you look at it. For a standard RM or RfC, assuming same strength of arguments as here I'd have no trouble declaring consensus that way. It's only a relatively few processes, such as RfA, that require more. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::It's kind of like I said above. It was a totally unacceptable close (61% isn't even enough to promote a single user to admin, let alone to make a major structural change), and the close was a supervote, since a real evaluation would've been "No consensus for the change, status quo remains." A major structural change requires ''more'' proportionally overwhelming support than an RfA or AfD, not less. But what's done is done, and we're stuck with it, because we could never get a consensus to overturn it. So let's work with what we've got and make it the best it can be. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm reminded a bit of reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Bruxner#cite_note-SMH1-0 this]; glad I did now. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::::Yet 61% is more then it takes to become an ARB, [[WP:ACE2011#Results]] and that is a straight up vote that doesn't even consider the strengths of the arguments. [[User:Monty845|<
:::::That's true, but it is actually billed as a straight-up vote that doesn't take into consideration any arguments. It's not masquerading as a discussion. In this case, the selected format is one that is intended to focus mainly on discussion, but the discussion was deprecated, tacked on to the bottom of the page after everyone had already expressed their opinions, without any serious attempt to address the points raised in the discussion. Just as importantly, this did not address issues raised in the *previous* discussions about the same subject, except for the comparatively minor point of whether or not to use this feature. The discussion of whether or not to use the feature should have come after "does this feature work?", "what would we use it for?", "what were the problems during the trial, and did we/how do we/can we fix them?" "what standards would be needed for this to work?" I am particularly disturbed that the closers have supported the notion of activating a feature *regardless* of whether or not the community can come to consensus on these questions. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 04:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::I don't accept the implication that a straight up vote should require a lower threshold of support than something which tried to be a qualitative discussion – albeit didn't always succeed. But that's a side-issue.<p>(<small>Disclaimer: The RfC close very much reflects my POV, and I don't in any way intend to hide that. Nonetheless I think the following is relevant.</small>) One of the arguments which I believe carried this was that for as long as PC's very existence is in limbo, the vocal and significant minority who unconditionally want to kill it with fire have no incentive to engage in the policy's development.<p>I don't think the closers had much of a choice here. If the first two options had been taken literally, and no other courses of action considered, the choice would have been between permanently killing off a system which at most 30% of participants ''idealogically'' oppose (probably significantly fewer: I'm talking about opponents who have made clear that PC should '''never''' be considered), or activating a system which is too liberal and too open to admin discretion for something which at least half of users have raised a degree of concern over (that is, opponents, those in option three, plus those in option two who voiced concern about this particular implementation). —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 05:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Given the way PC has been implemented on this project (It shouldn't have to take [[WP:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011|'''a fucking RfC''']] to shut down a '''time-limited trial''') I'd say part of the "ideological" protests are less protests about PC and more protests about its ''supporters'' forcing the rest of the Wiki to adopt it. This is also a huge part of the reason PC as a whole is a landmine almost comparable to (dare I say it) the Balkans. Both sides have entrenched views, feel wronged (whether rightly or not) and don't assume good faith towards each other. —
::::::Risker's point—in essence, that the cart is being put before the horse—is perfectly true. This was discussed at some length during the RfC, to no apparent effect. I also agree with Yair rand that 61% is pretty low for full-speed-ahead approval of such a major change, and that this could set an unfortunate precedent. Having taken a couple of days to reflect, I realize that I've become more dissatisfied with the close than I was initially. What really gnaws at me is the complete lack of acknowledgment that any of the Option 1 supporters' arguments (including our rebuttals to various Option 2 positions) just might conceivably have had some merit. I don't get that at all; I think the rationale the closers provided was terribly inadequate. Nevertheless, I doubt that anything good will come of bemoaning it here much longer. What Seraphimblade says about working with what we've got is correct. I'm not going to paint on a happy face and pretend I'm happy about it, but if there's no way backward, then the only constructive approach is to move forward as best we can, with as much good will as we can. Four months <small>('''Why''' such a fast track???)</small> will be gone before we know it, and I'd like to see the foreseeable negative effects of PC minimized as much as possible before the fact. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 06:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Valid points Rivertorch. I think the correct conclusion was made, but it is valid to ask for a bit more analysis on where they felt option 1 arguments had merit.<p>As for timeframes, again a valid point, but I entirely sympathise with the closers. Had the proposed timeline ran into 2013, they would have been criticised for stringing this out too long. On the face of it, in the knowledge of what is going to happen if we fail to reach a workable compromise, four months of discussion might well give all "sides" time to reach one. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 06:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 150 ⟶ 154:
::And I just remembered the other point that was never satisfactorily answered. When an editor makes a change to a publicly viewable page, that person retains full responsibility for that edit; that's why the few lawsuits that have occurred over the years have been editor-specific. But a pending change is not publicly viewable until a reviewer accepts it. There are good arguments that the act of accepting an edit (thus, making it public) means that the responsibility for its content then falls on the reviewer, or at least is equally shared by the reviewer. Given that pending changes will only be applied to articles for which there is already a known history of problematic edits, the imperative to "get it right" is even greater for reviewers than for recent changes patrollers - and RC patrollers are already considered fully responsible for anything they either return to or remove from articles. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 06:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Additional technical issues were discussed here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap/Archive_1 and the associated project page. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 19:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
*As per Risker - we are all totally responsible for any edit we make here - (I won't mention legally as the bells go off) - and reviewers will have the same responsibility as if it was their edit - although they will have a mitigation as a volunteer only reviewing and not the person actually desirous of making the addition, and considering the addition only in regards to en wikipedia policy that is something reviewers should be clearly be made aware of - this element of responsibility will allow a review with consideration for that fact (its really good that we promote this fact to reviewers) - that is a good thing - a hot spot unidentifiable IP address makes an addition with no responsibility and it is reviewed by a person that is identifiable and therefore with more responsibility - It is a good thing to raise the level of responsibility in regards to additions - especially in regards to living people - [[WP:Responsibility]] , perhaps [[Wikipedia:Accountability]] a failed proposal is a better link to expand - [[User:Youreallycan|<
*If a reviewer does not feel 100 percent cool with taking responsibility for any desired addition they should not accept it and move it to the talkpage for discussion where additional input, discussion and [[WP:Consensus]] can arise and the responsibility duly shared. - [[User:Youreallycan|<
::::I didn't mean to suggest ''you'' were thinking of taking this to the arbs, I know you're smarter than that, just making the point that it is time to move forward and that you have provided us with a lot of points that need to ne addressed in the next few months. That last one seems more like a question for the lawyers though. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::I won't hijack this thread to elaborate on my views, but I personally don't think that the idea of taking this decision to ArbCom is at all unreasonable or otherwise inane; it's fair to say that few AfD closures of comparable veracity would avoid or survive DRV. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C M B J'''''</span>]] </span> 06:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::If you feel that way, go ahead and start an RfAR; no one's holding you back. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::Moving to the talkpage is an interesting idea. But I've heard people say that BLP applies to talk pages... in which case, could you do so only if you think such an edit is consistent with BLP in the first place? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 03:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes - If a reviewer thinks a desired addition is a violation of BLP then you would just reject it and not repost it anywhere - with an edit summary of BLP violation - ( No [[WP:Reviewer]] is requested to take full responsibility for what they consider to be content that violates en wikipedia's [[WP:BLP]] policy by posting it to an en wikipedia talkpage - and that needs to be made clear to them) - I don't think any desired addition of content that is uncited should be placed on the talkpage if it is at all contentious - If contributing as a [[WP:Reviewer]] and uncited content was posted and looked worthy of addition - ''noteworthy'' I would look for a citation and add the content when I found one - [[User:Youreallycan|<
::::YRC is correct - BLP applies on every Wikipedia page, regardless of namespace. Meaning once BLP concerns have been raised, the material is not to be reposted anywhere on Wikipedia until [[WP:Reviewers|CRASH]] has been sufficiently bribed to remove their spurious BLP assertion on an edit about some minor politician from Bumfuck, Tennessee. —
:::::LOL - As per usual - if you are editing from a hotspot and your condescending weakly cited/uncited addition about such a person is rejected by a [[WP:Reviewer]], you could open a discussion about your desired addition on the talkpage and invite more opinions - Reviewers repeatedly opposed by consensus could/should be discussed for removal of the right. There were no historic incidents/complaints of the worry you cite being reported during the trial (none that I remember anyways) - [[User:Youreallycan|<
::::::What's the likelihood an anon will use a talkpage when reverted as opposed to just edit-warring or abandoning the topic area/Wikipedia altogether, YRC? This is primarily a question of psychology and perception, not ability to do anything, and it always has been. When it gets to the point where we're using BLPs as [[Children's interests (rhetoric)|holy things to be defended from corruption of others]] (see also: Scott Macdonald v. Wnt), then you forfeit any argument that everything will be fine. —
:Risker, I've added a summary of your comments about which pages aren't good candidates to [[Wikipedia:Pending changes#Trial_results]]. Please feel free to correct any errors I've made there.
Line 175 ⟶ 179:
"This RfC was open for 60 days from its start date. This means it was closed to comment at 23:59 UTC on May 22, 2012. '''The coordinating administrators are in the process of determining the result.'''"
Also, could Fluffernutter's closing comment, "Coordinating admins are working on a close. Target date unknown at the moment, but we will try to keep the community updated," be changed to a statement saying that the result has been determined? Thanks, [[User:David1217|<
<!-- End request -->
:
::At the top of the page. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 23:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
:::On the off chance that the closers have any last-minute additions, I'm going to leave this alone for one of the closers to look at. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Whoops, sorry 'bout that, both of those slipped our notice. I've removed/updated the "close pending" comments. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 00:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Thanks Fluffernutter! [[User:David1217|<
== Getting started ==
Line 202 ⟶ 206:
:I've been trying to think of what we might do to keep things moving over the next 4 months, and increase the chances of a favorable reaction to our close, but with maximum guidance from the participants and minimum guidance from us. I'm going to react to what's going on from time to time; the clearer I can be, the fewer "Where did ''that'' come from?" comments I'm going to get after our final closing statement. Feel free to adopt a different style. I'm not going to push anything that you're not comfortable with, including in the final closing statement.
:I don't think we've done this before on Wikipedia, but then, I don't think we've ever done a good job of un-fubar'ing totally fubar'ed processes, so it's time to experiment. I'm thinking of encouraging people to create a page in either the form WP:Pending_changes/(your username) (with a commitment to at least participate in the main threads that arise there), <s>or in the form User:(Username)/PC (with a commitment to moderate discussions that arise there in a responsible and effective way).</s> These pages, not the main talk page, are the ones that I'd prefer to look at when trying to decide which positions seem to have enough momentum to warrant a mini-vote. That puts the burden on the participants, if they want to be heard, to take the initiative in arguing their positions and in offering reasonable compromises on the main talk page designed to attract more discussion to their personal page. Thoughts? - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 18:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::I think the subpage idea is great, because that will help make it clear exactly who's saying what. It'll make our lives that much easier, and I think other people will generally appreciate it. Your suggestion about closing and how to respond is also a good idea, in the interest of both transparency and clarity. Hopefully that will lead to less general gnashing of teeth; no guarantee it will, but it's worth trying; better to try and have it fail once than never to try at all. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
Btw, here's my problem with this page's content so far: I can't tell where we're going. People at WT:RFA have a history of coming up with ideas and then failing big-time when it comes to an RFC, but they're the exception and not the rule ... whatever you guys are interested in doing that involves PC, if we can show that we're doing something useful and making it work, there's a very good chance that the community will approve what we're doing and how PC fits into that by the time we get to October. There are many options: page protection has connections to just about everything. Page protection has an obvious connection to article reviewing, except that you're generally trying to find consensus on just one or a few questions, rather than covering everything in an article review ... so, if you want, we could pull in some successful article reviewers and see if we can make PC work as a kind of mini-article review. If you guys are into noticeboards and how they work, we can look at those boards, including obviously [[WP:Requests for page protection]]. If you're into the general question of why big RFCs seem to suck so much, we could tackle the problem of making RFCs more rational. If you want to look at specific problems with the draft version of PC mentioned by opposers in the last RFC, that works for me. Whatever you want to do is fine ... but so far, I can't tell. What I can tell you is: the people who show up and put in the effort are the people who get to make the calls. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 13:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
::@Dank: I also agree with your proposal above. I do have a question though. You say "...offering reasonable compromises on the main talk page designed to attract more discussion to their personal page". What do you mean by the "main talk page"? Do you mean this page? This seems like a reasonable place, but it still seems like most of the discussion is still centered around arguing about the RFC closure. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 17:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I agree its a good time to create a specific page for discussion regarding the switch on, this will assist avoiding any sidetracking of the much required discussion - [[User:Youreallycan|<
:::I meant this talk page. There has to be a page where anyone can say whatever they want, and it may as well be this one, but this page won't be useful for some of the things people are likely to want to do. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 17:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Like Youreallycan, I think it would be a good idea to have a specific page for the policy discussion, mostly because there seems to be a lot of irrelevant stuff going on here. I'm fine, however, with having the discussion start out here (it's on a lot of people's radar) and then moving it elsewhere if it gets too cluttered here. I'm going to boldly create [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Adjwilley]] since [[WP:PC]] is just a redirect. Sound good? <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 22:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Sure, I've got it watchlisted, and if people prefer [[WP:Pending changes/Adjwilley]] to [[WP:PC/Adjwilley]], I'll make the change in my suggestion above. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 22:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::Worst case scenario, I have to move it. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 23:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the input but please do not create such an article at this time (or later without support from other users) - lets get a little more feedback - and we don't , shouldn't have a single users name in the discussion title - regards - [[User:Youreallycan|<
::::::::The page I created is not meant to be the main/discussion page (that's here for now), but a sub-page for my personal drafts of the policy that can be discussed later on the main page. If you think it shouldn't exist, I can try to move it to my sandbox for now, without a redirect. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 23:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, I think you've got the right idea ... create a page, talk about what you think is most important, see if anyone is interested. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 15:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::Strongly support proposal suggested by Dank. Prefer WP:PC/(your username) over User:(Username)/PC for several reasons. I'd suggest a new central page—something like [[WP:Pending changes implementation 2012]]—since we'll be working on a process deriving from the RfC and not the RfC itself (also, I imagine we may want both a talk page and a project page, and the project page attached to this page is neatly bundled up at a manageable size). [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 08:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::Yes - Sound like the way to progress - [[User:Youreallycan|<
:::Okay, so far we've got one page in the form "WP:Pending_changes/(your username)", is that format acceptable to everyone? - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 13:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::::I like the subpages idea, but surely it will be a nightmare for you to close? —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 225 ⟶ 229:
::::::::I like the [[WP:Pending changes/Implementation 2012]] idea better too. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 13:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
{{unindent}} I have my doubts that the solution for getting more sensible response to a badly broken up discussion is to create a new discussion that is deliberately broken up. If it is going to broken up, I'd rather see it by topic area than by user. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 11:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
:I also don't support spreading the discussion to lots of userpages or topic areas, although opening a discussion thread to get a bit of feedback on wikiprojects might be worthwhile to get a bit of feedback - but many wiki projects are wastelands or worse so I personally wouldnt bother - any user that feels its important to discuss the implementation and his project can and likely should open a discussion locally to get feedback as to how best they can use the tool and then lobby the central discussion page in regards to their position. /vacatingI support leaving this page and creating the implementation page [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Implementation 2012]] and moving focus and giving publicity and encouragement to users to comment there- [[User:Youreallycan|<
::I think a lot of questions will be cleared up after the page is created and the discussions start. I understand the concern of a fragmented discussion; I think it will start out that way, but will eventually coalesce as we continue. I'd like to start with a "shotgun" stage where we can get wildly different, but well-thought-out ideas from a bunch of people. We do need to keep things organized, though, and this would be done at the "directory of subpages" on the main page. (We could even transclude the various subpages onto the main page, into collapsed sections, of course, for easy browsing.) <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 13:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I wasn't very clear ... I don't mean for votes to happen on the subpages, and I don't mean to hide important questions on subpages. One of the problems with PC, for years now, has been the sheer volume of things to consider and voices to be heard. To keep the conversations manageable, I suggest that anyone who wants to can create a page like Adjwilley and Rivertorch have. That way, people can enter or leave the conversations of their choice as they like, and add one objection or one topic at a time as they like, until the participants think they've covered the bases enough that they're likely to be successful when they bring their proposal back to the main talk page ... and I agree, that won't be this page. A separate point: for PC to work, people need to actually do the work. If you give someone the impression that we'll happily accept their grunt work, but we're not interested in any of their ideas, they're unlikely to put in the time on the grunt work. The trouble is, if I try to say something encouraging to anyone who speaks here, for the purposes of keeping them engaged, that's going to take us off in so many different directions that few people will be able to or want to keep up with everything on the page. Encouragement works much better when it's targeted to subpages. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 18:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 231 ⟶ 235:
:::::How do you feel about [[WP:Pending changes/2012]]? Possibly easier for the casual editor to find, or remember. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 20:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::Sounds good to me. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I quite like - implementation - perhaps add scope - that will get users interested to come and look / comment - Its not really Pending changes/2012 as that would also imo include the RFC ... [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Implementation and scope 2012]] - I am not really bothered so much, but whatever attracts as many users to come discuss and suggest ideas is fine with me. [[User:Youreallycan|<
I now see there are a huge number of subpages of WP:Pending changes .... would it be okay to name the subpages WP:Pending changes/2012/(your username)? - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 14:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 240 ⟶ 244:
:::::I preferred the previous locations, because they were in the hierarchy of [[WP:Pending changes]] and it was immediately clear what they were about. Another way around the edit notice would be to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes&action=edit edit the notice itself]. I don't think there are any RfCs going on curently, and now would be a good time to tone down the notice a bit, since it's obviously affecting a lot of pages. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 17:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::I don't want to change the editnotice as part of a general strategy to leave all the previous pages (including even editnotices) exactly as they are; it will help people figure out what came before, and why, if they're looking into the history. And if the editnotice doesn't change, I'd rather we not be saddled with it. Is "PC2012" unclear? Is there a better name? - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 17:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC) <small>I'd also like to reinforce the view that we're starting fresh here, and all comments are welcome.</small>
:::::::I dunno... [[WP:PC/2012]]? That still keeps us in the PC ___domain, but manages to avoid the edit notice. Ironically, it also comes nearly full circle to your original recommendation. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 18:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC) <small>As appealing as "starting fresh" sounds, I don't think it is entirely accurate, since this re-writing of policy is a direct result of the 2012 RfC.</small>
::::::::<small><small>Hey, if there's a rule that I have to be "entirely accurate", I'm bailing right now! - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 18:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)</small></small>
:::::::::Well, I think we should decide on something quick and then stick with it. I preferred most of the options above to WP:PC2012, but you can do as you see best. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 18:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} Ok, it looks like '''[[WP:PC2012]]''' is going to be the final destination. If you change your mind for some reason and decide to move it again, I'd suggest leaving redirects this time, since the last series of moves broke a bunch of links (I had already asked a couple of people for opinions, linking to my page). Also, I think I'll leave a note below, recommending that the people still protesting the close check out the new page and join the conversation. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:Oops, sorry. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 22:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
== Wtf ==
Line 258 ⟶ 266:
--[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 04:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:I suspect that nobody else has responded yet, because of not wanting to engage in a discussion centered on whether the closers had an ulterior motive. I would be willing to respond to your other arguments if you were to strike the final bullet point. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 19:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::Yes- imo that comment is a personal attack [[WP:NPA]] - from the administrator [[User:Slakr]] - and he should strike it asap - The primary position here is as always has been - a vocal minority oppose pending changes - the time has come to move on from their objections and focus on how and where we are going to switch the tool on and the vocal minority should move to that position as well. -[[User:Youreallycan|<
:::Not many of the opposers are going to be happy with the recent closing statement, so unless the supporters are making an effort to keep welcoming their views into the discussion, lots of them will stay away, and some will be combative. Gnomish editors (I include myself) tend to stay away from those jobs where they have as much chance of getting trouted as getting barnstarred, so if PC is going to get the manpower it needs to work at all, we're going to have to fix some problems. Fortunately, we've got 4 months to try things and watch what goes wrong ... and that's another reason we need solid participation from opposers, because they're probably going to do the best job of noticing what's going wrong. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 20:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Whether or not minority opposes of Pending are happy with the result (those guys need to get on-board - the wheels will not drop off) -[[WP:Pending changes]] will be implemented and contained at a level of reviewing that is comparable to the contributors active in [[WP:Reviewing]] - [[User:Youreallycan|<
::::::Speak for yourself and not others, YRC. I've made it [[Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll/Archive 1#Include abbreviated list from Closure page?|explicitly clear]] that, aside from RfCs and discussions on its existence, I want no part of FlaggedRevisions or derivatives thereof. This has been stated on my talkpage for a long while. —
:::::::I speak for myself and the consensus - you are one of the users that has strongly opposed Pending changes - you want no part of it - so - that is fine - no problem - [[User:Youreallycan|<
:::::Slakr, short of presenting two shrubberies of different heights for the terrace effect and chopping down the tallest tree in the woods with a herring, <!---Note to the humor impaired; this is what's known as a joke. Please, I'm really not bothered by this, I went into this expecting it.---> I'm not sure what else we need to explain. We evaluated strength of arguments and independently came to about the same conclusion. The implementation dates are partially a request from the devs, who really don't want to have to deal with this over the holiday season; of all the people on Wikipedia, I know better than almost anyone what happens when you [[WP:ACTRIAL|anger them]], so we decided that doing something to aggravate them wasn't a good idea. And certainly you know that this isn't the same as an RfA; I'd really like you and everyone else to stop using the straw man of RfA, which has a defined, agreed-upon definition of consensus. RfCs have no such defined idea of consensus, so admins are allowed to use broad discretion. And finally, I will say this as loudly as I can, just so it's obvious; <u>'''''I DON'T PERSONALLY CARE ABOUT THE USE OF PENDING CHANGES'''''</u> <!---This section plays upon the trope of hyperbole. Again, I'm not at all flustered here.--->. That's why I signed up to close this; I've never had any opinion on it. I didn't participate at all in the voluminous discussions prior to this, as I thought I'd have no problem [[Daodejing|going along with whatever the consensus turned out to be]]. When I went to close this, I had the same basic attitude; I'd advocate to close it with whatever consensus I found. And before anyone thinks I'm losing my mind, please read the commented out sections I left; it's a sense of humor like Neil Peart describes [http://m.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=3719 here]. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::::::Thanks, Blade, for the humor. I don't think assuming bad faith on the part of the closing admins is going to get anybody anywhere, and I don't think any further discussion on that is constructive. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 23:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::LOL... a personal attack? :P I take it we haven't met before. :P If you knew my history, including my relationship with Fluffernutter and DeltaQuad (among others), you'd see that that's totally not the case. Rather, people subconsciously see things a certain way if they're already pre-disposed to it (see also: [[confirmation bias]]). It's not a character trait; it's a human psychology thing, and even ''I'm'' susceptible to it. If someone's already got an opinion on a matter, they tend to look for confirmation of it. It could particularly factor in on issues of borderline consensus; hence the reason it was even a point. Is that what's at play here? Not sure, but I nonetheless "have a feeling," mainly because of the number/outcome differences. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 03:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 287 ⟶ 295:
::::::::I'll give you an unrelated example: Consider the people who commented on an early version of the [[WP:Article feedback tool]]. Anti-change people were loud and regularly rude to the WMF staff who were testing it. About ten of them showed up to complain in the early months. About ten people who liked it showed up to express varying levels of support. So the community's opinion is split 50-50, right? But you'd be wrong: during that time, hundreds of users actually used the tool, and a survey of those users showed more than 90% of them supported it (the rest split between dislike and indifference).
::::::::You can't assume that 40% of those who were passionate enough to express an opinion translates to 40% of the whole community. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::For what it's worth, Slakr, Waid is right. Granted that a large number of users did participate in the discussion, but all in all maybe 600 registered users, out of what's easily thousands of users registered or otherwise, commented. I will agree the percentage should have been higher (The original [[WP:Pending changes/Straw poll|"straw" poll]] was aiming for 66%), but to argue one way or another, on the basis of any of the PC RfCs and straw polls individually or combined, that the majority of the community accepted/rejected it is bollocks. At best, a majority of a specific subset of users accepted/rejected it. I have little doubt the sections of the community that weren't enfranchised (i.e. anons) or who don't give a rat's ass about the politicking that this whole fucking process turned out to be (i.e. everyone who didn't comment despite having the ability to) have their own opinions on it, and they may or may not mesh with the given consensus. But to say the "community" had its final say when a '''''massive''''' portion of it was barred from the Senate floor is fallacious, to say the least. —
:::::::::{{ec}} I think it's reasonable to say that there are conservative elements around who simply oppose any and all changes, but the applicability of that assumption narrows rapidly as the sample size increases beyond a few dozen. In the case of popular proposals such as this one here, [[Dihydrogen monoxide hoax|support is cheap]], whereas critical thought is not. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C M B J'''''</span>]] </span> 04:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
===Step-by-step defence of the closure===
Line 302 ⟶ 310:
(continued from above) For disclosure, I consider myself to be "cautiously in favour of PC". I justify this claim on the basis that I argued for the trial to be terminated, and as an option 3 supporter in this RfC, wanted further discussion on how PC should be used before going full steam ahead. I believe that under the right conditions, PC can be better than the status quo, but that the status quo would be better than a free-for-all determined at the whim of individual admins. While on the face of it I should be jubilant about this close, in practise I am worried about what would happen if the deadline wasn't met.<p>Back on-topic, it is likely that most people opposed to PC would attempt to make a case for no consensus, and most in favour of PC would argue for moving ahead? —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)<p>
:Obviously. Given how much this issue has suffered from internal politics (Devs refusing to shoot unless we give them the word, the several different polls/RfCs) I would even argue that determining a consensus is impractical at best given the circumstances. You're always going to have a subsection of the community who doesn't like a change and won't play ball with it, and given that PC has had an overextended trial that refused to be shut down, a very biased straw poll put together by a supporter, and two highly contentious RfCs, there is no way this was going to be a clean-cut close. Sure, I'm mad about it, but given PC's polarizing nature, it's fair to say this is the '''best''' any side can hope for. —
(continued from above) More than 60% of participants in this RfC supported PC, more a third opposed it. In most circumstances that would make no consensus the primary consideration, but would not automatically rule out a closing "in favour" of PC (for want of a more appropriate phrase) if there were good reasons to do so. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)<p>
(continued from above) It is highly probable, almost-but-not-quite certain, that in the event of a no-consensus closure there would eventually have been future RfC on the reintroduction of PC. It is equally probable that if ''that'' were closed as no-consensus, there would eventually be another one. Based on what has happened in the past, I would guess at 12–18 month gaps between big RfCs, although there might be smaller scale ones in between. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)<p>
:This is also true, and odds are it would be [[WP:PARENT|started by a PC supporter]]. Given that the organizers of this one were "neutral" and the poll still turned out to have problematic design, I shudder to think what one of those would have been like. —
(continued from above) It is highly probable that the ratio of idealogical support and idealogical opposition will always be roughly the same as it is now. This statement does '''not''' necessarily mean that any future RfC is doomed to no consensus. It merely means that for at least as long as this issue has not been decided, there will always be a substantial number of people who will never accept having anything like PC, and another substantial number who will never accept not having anything like it. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)<p>
:Again, as with all things in politics, this is true. However, as PC relies on people to work, this is a significant problem for it since, even if we assume that not everyone who votes no refuses Reviewer rights, that's still a sizeable bloc of people refusing Reviewer rights, or, worse, [[WP:POINT|deliberately fucking with the reviewers]]. Also, it's "[[wikt:ideological|ideological]]". —
(continued from above)It should of course be acknowledged that any form of PC would be unlikely to satisfy those who do not want it. But if PC were ever to be introduced, opponents should have the right to help shape the policy under which it is used. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)<p>
:'''''[[Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll/Archive 1#Include abbreviated list from Closure page?|IF THEY WANT TO.]]''''' This cannot be emphasized enough. —
(continued from above) Unless the return of PC was inevitable at the time of drafting, it is implausible that PC sceptics would have been proportionately represented in creating a workable PC policy. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)<p>
:Again, true because of politics, given that a large proportion of opposers do not want PC period. —
(continued from above) Some critics of this decision point to two thirds support, or the RfA threshold (70–75%), as a more appropriate numerical barometer. Given that at least 64.6% of participants expressed a degree of support for PC, it is plausible that in a future RfC, a small percentage increase in the level of support could result in PC being introduced straight away. If this were to happen, the opinions of PC sceptics probably wouldn't be fairly reflected in PC policy. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)<p>
:Not likely given that PC is contentious enough that none of the four polls/RfCs on it have hit 66%. In fact, the lowest% close was [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage]], with '''59%''' in favor of continuing the trial; the highest was the 2011 RfC at 65.8% in favor of ending the trial. —
::Fair point. Although it would be misleading to use the figure from the trial's end as an indication of opposition to PC. That closure was simply a recognition, from supporters and opposers, that it was unacceptable for a trial as contentious as this to overrun, and that progress could not be made until it ended as previously agreed. You said "Time to reset to the status quo and assess the trial, then make a final decision after we're better informed.", which I believe reflected the mood from many on both sides of the discussion. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 22:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
:::That was not the point I was trying to make with my comment here. I am well aware the reason the "trial" (more like fiat policy implementation) was shut down was because people from both sides came together. But '''even then''' the RfC still did not hit 66%. —
(continued from above) A closure along the lines of the one made to this RfC represented the best possible chance of creating a PC policy which is representative of the community's view. There is <u>absolutely no guarantee</u> that this will be the case, but it did nonetheless represent the best possible chance. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)<p>
Line 340 ⟶ 348:
::The other significant failure is that implementation was separated from the "yes/no" aspect of it. If we can't come to consensus on how PC should be used, we should refrain from using it at all, not implement it with some type of "default." The two should have been part of the same discussion, since unless we can answer with a strong consensus "How and when shall we use PC?", we should not ask for it to be turned on whatsoever.
::Closers are not here to supervote, even for very good reasons, or to attempt to read/predict the future. They are there to determine whether or not there is sufficient consensus to implement a particular change, considering appropriately that bigger changes require a greater proportional level of support. Here, the outcome would've been an outright "fail" for an RfA, not even within discretion. Since an RfA is a much lower-magnitude change, this proposal definitively failed to gain consensus. I'm not sure why there's been such ramrodding of the PC issue both at the trial and here, and the closers of this discussion are about the last I'd ascribe bad faith to, but they're also the last I'd expect such a clearly flawed judgment from. I'm not really sure what to think of the whole thing. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 02:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:::My guess is, given that Blade has commented a few times about not pissing off the developers, that it was closed this way specifically so that the devs didn't get butthurt and so that the questions about how the RfC was organized would cease - the handlers have been criticized for this situation from Day 1. —
::::I'll try again; the time frame we put on this was at the recommendation of one of the developers. That was only ''after'' we had made the major determinations, and it was literally a couple hours before we closed it that one of them suggested we stick a time on it. That's the extent of the role it played here. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
:::::By doing so, you've effectively put the cart before the horse and pretty much ensured even more questions for this close. There are substantial concerns over the fact that improving it was not an option (which would definitely have alienated several would-be !voters), and given that people have expressed that the proposed policy does nothing to address the major issues that even ''supporters'' note need worked on, it's impossible to look at the situation and not think you're doing this just to appease Devzilla. —
{{outdent}}You are conflating two separate issues. Look closely again at the note in the RFC about improving it first, it clearly differentiates between the option of improving the ''policy'' first, which was defined as option three and was very much on the table, and improving'' the tool itself'', which costs money since the paid staff would be doing it and was not an option since they had already developed it to this point and we still were unsure if we would even use it. That being said, I would reiterate at this point that unless you plan to take this to the arbcom there is nothing to be gained by picking apart the close. It's done and there is only a small group here protesting it.Those of us that are interested in actually trying to move forward instead of backward should cease partipating in such talk and focus our efforts on resolving the issues with the policy. Otherwise we are going to end up stuck with my draft policy as all we've got. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
:Beeblebrox, I'd very much like to hear from you why you decided to exclude the idea of improvement before use, since you are incorrect in the above. Mediawiki, including PC, is [[:open source]] software. Therefore, ''anyone'', not just WMF paid developers, could have volunteered to do any required improvements. If no one were willing to, and the community found that improvements were needed, why should we use it? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 17:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 348 ⟶ 356:
== Filing RfArb ==
I'm filing a request for arbitration in an effort to clarify whether Blade's close was indeed kosher and, if not, what should be done after. I will link when it's up. —
:[[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Pending Changes RfC close|And it is up.]] I have only listed the closers as parties for now since the only thing I filed the Arbitration request to contest is the close. This doesn't preclude others from adding statements, bear in mind. —
::I can't see them taking that up - but lets see - if it helps opposer's get on board that would be a benefit - I have at times on this wiki been so certain I was correct and discussed and attempted to sway opinions but when finally the close is made and it has been against my position I have accepted it and put my objections to bed - that is what we need here - and then we can move to implementation and scope discussions. If fact we should press on with discussions regardless of this request for arbitration. [[User:Youreallycan|<
:::If they ''don't'' take it up, then the community needs to go even one step further and have a discussion about how dubious RFC closures should be formally reviewed. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C M B J'''''</span>]] </span> 11:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::::All I see are four of the prominant objectors to pending changes refusing to accept the outcome of a community discussion - in which hundreds of users commented over months and that was closed by four experienced administers. - sadly rather than aacept that outcome and get onboard with working together to discuss scope of implementation it appears filibustering and astroturfing are to be the order of the day, [[User:Youreallycan|<
{{outdent}} - I have noticed that the people unhappy with this close are the vocal minority strongly against the use of a much more effective BLP protection tool than semi or full protection. Don't be surprised if Arbcom decline this case. [[User:Barts1a|Barts1a]] / [[User_Talk:Barts1a|Talk to me]] / [[User_talk:Barts1a/Yell|Help me improve]] 11:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:I find this filing absolutely ridiculous. Yet another editor who believes their views overrule consensus.—[[User:Cyberpower678|<
:It's certainly interesting to know that having contributed two sentences to this RFC inherently qualifies one as a "prominent" and "vocal" commentator. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C M B J'''''</span>]] </span> 22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a [[WP:DRV]]-ish "Consensus Review" process that could be used instead? If not, then we should create one. A process to obtain a "second opinion" would be valuable to the project. I hope that ArbCom doesn't accept this case. If ArbCom accepts this case, then ArbCom would be taking a major step towards becoming GovCom. ArbCom isn't here to decide consensus and make policy. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:I'd actually venture to say that even if they ''do'' accept the case, the community should ''still'' pursue establishing a proper (orderly, open, defined, and limited) peer review platform for contested RFC closures. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C M B J'''''</span>]] </span> 22:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::I agree that having something to review RfC closures would be good. See also [[User talk:Jc37#Arbitration on Pending Changes RfC close]]. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 12:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:::My intent was to have the close reviewed, not to stymie PC. At this point, I've come to expect that no matter what the arguments, no matter how loud the opposition, I cannot trust anyone pro-PC to actually abide by mutually-agreed terms. (And before you ask, they brought the bad faith on themselves.) —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color:#228B22;">''Jeremy''</span>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color:#228B22;">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 05:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
===Filing RfArb was rejected by the Arbcom===
* - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=501278686&oldid=501266663 diff]
Just to note the request by [[User:Jéské Couriano]] for arbitration regarding the close of the RFC was refused by the Arbcom - [[User:Youreallycan|<span style="color:purple;">You</span>]]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can</span>]] 06:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
== Proposal: Survey ==
We should host a survey or poll asking the following question: ''Are you satisfied with how the 2012 Pending Changes Request for Comment was closed? Please explain why.'' A bot should then be used to notify the participants of the RfC. The data from the survey could then be used to determine whether the 2012 RfC concluded properly and satisfactorily. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:I can already predict the rough opinion; about 310 people are going to say they were satisfied, about 180 people will say they weren't, and there will be a 15 vote swing either way. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::I guess what you mean by "survey" is a sort of RfC on the RfC. Go for it. [[User:FormerIP|Formerip]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 16:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::Yeah that will probably happen. It's unfortunate, this seemed like an obvious "no consensus" to me. '''[[User talk:Aaron Schulz|<span style="color:blue;">Aar</span><span style="color:darkblue;">on Sc</span><span style="color:black;">hulz</span>]]''' 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
*This type of filibustering and creating of uneccesarry procedural hurdles is what ruined the 2011 RFC and made it necessary to create the restrictive format used in this process. The time for moving backward i over, we need to move forwrd. I again appeal to any and all interested in moving forward to disengage frrom discussions analyzing or contesting the outcome. We don't need to particpate in them, despite the objections this thing ''' was''' handled properly. We are only wasting time by arguing on this point. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::This is a joke. The result is what it is and a rerun would come out the same. People need to accept and move on. If they don't work on the process the draft policy will be put in place which needs work done on it. No point wasting time on a pointless exercise given 4 good admin co-ordinators came to the correct conclusion based on the figures.[[User:Edinburgh Wanderer|<span style="color:Maroon;">Edinburgh</span>]] [[User talk:Edinburgh Wanderer|<span style="color:green;">Wanderer</span>]] 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::Nothing "ruined" the 2011 RfC". It may have been messy and convoluted, but it actually provided a good example both of meaningful discussion and a well-reasoned close. While I was sympathetic to your desire to create a less messy, convoluted process in this RfC (and I remain so), I do ''not'' believe it was "necessary" to have a format so restrictive that it essentially guaranteed the outcome you favored by subjugating discussion to the vote (and I don't mean the "!vote"). A whole lot of editors, including every single Option 1 endorser, chose to participate in the RfC you designed, despite its flaws. We ''did'' "move forward", in other words, and we did so with good will towards you and, at least in my case, with a sincere hope that the participants would somehow find a compromise that everyone could accept. Sadly, that didn't happen.<p>While I may ''disagree'' with the closers' decision, which presumably gave you everything you wanted (except perhaps an immediate turn-on date), my objection to the close isn't the decision itself but the sloppy, haphazard justification for the decision. ''That'' took me by surprise, and that I find so difficult to accept that, after much consideration, I made my first-ever post to an ArbCom page. Would I have requested ArbCom involvement? No, and I advised one editor against going that route. But my continued willingness to "move foward" shouldn't mean that I have to keep silent about what I see as a major failure of the RfC process (and perhaps of the larger community itself). We can either acknowledge our mistakes and keep them in mind so as to avoid repeating them or we are almost certain to repeat them. I'll move forward towards the future ''and'' I'll speak up about the past when I think it's warranted. I find it a bit disappointing that no proponent of PC, however happy he or she may be with the latest RfC's outcome, has seen fit to publicly entertain the possibility there might be anything wrong with the way that outcome arrived. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I probably can't say anything about the close without causing at least a perception of bias in one direction or another. I absolutely can say that I would like to avoid even the appearance of fumbling around, much less actual fumbling around, in my closes, so I'm taking people's complaints seriously. I think my best bet is to be open about what I'm thinking at each point, so that people can correct me as we go if I get off course. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 22:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
==WP:PC2012==
It looks like the close is going to hold up, so I'd like to invite any interested editors to join in the next step of the process: defining the policy. If you think PC is broken, here's your chance to fix it. If you like PC but think there are problems with the provisional policy, we need your participation. Feel free to check out [[WP:PC2012]] and the associated talk page, and comment if you like. Over the next few weeks/months we will be having a series of mini-votes there that will probably affect the future of PC. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 20:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
== Separate policy or part of PP? ==
This might have been settled on another page, but the only issue that I think absolutely must be decided (as opposed to all those that ''should'' be decided) before roll out is this: whatever the contents of the "PC policy", will it be part of [[WP:Page protection]] or on a separate page (making it our 56th separate policy)? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
:If it's not too complex, then I imagine it will get added to [[WP:Page protection]] at some point. It probably wouldn't make sense to move the discussion that's currently at [[WT:PC2012]] to that page yet. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 01:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
== Yet another RfC ==
The first in a series of Requests for Comment is now open at [[WP:PC2012/RfC 1]]. The purpose of these RfC's is to fix some of the potential problems with the provisional policy before pending changes goes live again at the end of November. Anyone is invited to vote in these RfC's, and your participation will be appreciated. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 21:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
*The next RfC is up at [[WP:PC2012/RfC 2]]. There are more questions to this one, and it will likely affect the policy more than the last one. As always, everyone is invited to participate. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]] <small>([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</small></span> 20:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
| |||