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 55:
::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 139:
:::::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 159:
::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|<span style="color:purple;">You</span>]]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can</span>]] 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. —
:::::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|<span style="color:purple;">You</span>]]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can</span>]] 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. —
: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 265:
:::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|<span style="color:purple;">You</span>]]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can</span>]] 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. —
:::::::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|<span style="color:purple;">You</span>]]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can</span>]] 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|<span style="font-family:MS Mincho; color:black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 21:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 291:
::::::::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 306:
(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 344:
::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|<span style="font-family:MS Mincho; color:black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 04:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::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 352:
== 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|<span style="color:purple;">You</span>]]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can</span>]] 06:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 365:
: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.) —
===Filing RfArb was rejected by the Arbcom===
* - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=501278686&oldid=501266663 diff]
| |||