Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 20:
::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 ==
Line 31:
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|<span style="color:purple;">You</span>]]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can</span>]] 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|<
**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|<span style="color:purple;">You</span>]]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can</span>]] 18:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 52:
::*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)
Line 136:
::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|<span style="font-family:MS Mincho; color:black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 02:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC) <small>Just in case people are confused; this was intended as a bit of humor. It plays both upon the trope of hyperbole and facetiousness, there's no ill will or complaint intended on my part. 14:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)</small>
::::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)
| |||