Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:47, 10 April 2019

Revision as of 16:41, 13 October 2021

Line 24:

==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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 13:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

* (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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

*(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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 14:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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]]&#124;[[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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 14:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

*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|<font color="Green">Monty</font>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small>_{<font color="#A3BFBF">845</font>}</small>]] 17:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

**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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 18:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

:::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:

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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 17:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

{{ec}}:I agree with almost all of your points and would add the following

::*The standards reviewers should use when reviewing an edit

Line 62:

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% &ndash; 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 14:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

::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:

::::::::::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 18:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

{{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:

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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 20:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

::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:

*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>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 21:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

:::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>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 21:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::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 150:

::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 19:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

*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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 20:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

::::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)

Line 158:

::::::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|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 04:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 15:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

::::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. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> ^{<small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small>} 02:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::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. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> ^{<small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small>} 04:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Line 206:

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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 17:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

:::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 23:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 11:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:::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:

::::::::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 12:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

::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:

:::::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 05:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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 262:

--[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small>^{\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/}</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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]]

:::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 20:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::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. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> ^{<small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small>} 23:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 23:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::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|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 21:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::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)

Line 354:

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. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> ^{<small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small>} 04:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

:[[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. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> ^{<small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small>} 04:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 06:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

:::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">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''''—&nbsp;'''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C&nbsp;M&nbsp;B&nbsp;J'''''</span>]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 11:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

{{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|<font color=green face=Neuropol>cyberpower</font>]] [[User talk:Cyberpower678|^{<font color=olive face=arnprior>Chat</font>}]]<sub style="margin-left:-3.7ex"><font color=olive face=arnprior>Online</font></sub> 12:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Line 369:

* - [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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 06:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

== Proposal: Survey ==