Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 1: 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 7:
==Discussion==
*'''Question''' Are we still expecting a new and improved version of Pending Changes to be rolled out in the future? I was under the impression that the in-limbo state we're currently in was because we were waiting for a new version with improvements in the areas people complained about. <b>[[User:Soap|<
:*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_64#Announcement_about_Pending_Changes This] appears to be the last thing resembling an "official" statement on the matter, which suggested resuming discussion about a month from now. However, there have been several other conversations lately where users have expressed frustration at this delay, and at the perception that PC is being "shoehorned" into being an accepted reality on WP because the trial period has now run for seven months as opposed to two. However, if the higher-ups could give us a firm release date for said improvements as opposed to vagaries this could of course be reconsidered. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 00:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
::*I always was under the impression that someone had promised a new update in November, after which time another poll would be held, but I never heard about it again. Am I imagining things? <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 03:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
:::*That is indeed what was stated earlier. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 11:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
*It appears that the trail period will run until the opposition runs out of steam. So I'm really unsure as to the point of any more RfCs. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 02:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
:*I suspect many of the supporters of Pending Changes are also "running out of steam", so to speak, as we were expecting a new and improved version to have launched by now. Currently there are no pages with PC on my watchlist and we're not allowed to add any new ones so I would have to say that for all practical purposes Pending Changes is off and to officially discontinue it would make no difference to me. I'd like to see it revived, but the last poll made it clear that the majority wanted an improved version, not just a revival of the one we have. Of course I would not be in favor of reviving a version that most people dont want.<b>[[User:Soap|<
::*Self correction: It seems that the wording of the page protection notice has changed from specifically disallowing new Pending Changes protection to "please don't do anything drastic". So technically we can still do it. But it seems that it is used very rarely based on what I see at [[WP:RFPP]]. <b>[[User:Soap|<
:I'm afraid, Protonk, that tone doesn't communicate well over the internet, so I can't tell if you're being shrewdly cynical of blatantly sleazy. Essentially, I agree (or disagree) that waiting for everyone else to "run out of steam" is ''not'' the way to solve these disputes.<big>☻☻☻[[User:s8333631|Sithman]] [[User talk:s8333631| VIII !]][[Special:Randompage|!]]☻☻☻</big> 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
::I'm not making a normative statement, so I don't think either characterization applies. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 34:
::Ugh. Sorry Fetch, but it was "policy by polling" that got us into this mess in the first place. That is why I deliberately opened a discussion and participants are asked ''not'' to vote. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
:::That's true, but my only concern is how long this will drag on. If we have a poll, we can set a predetermined threshold, a clear start/end date, etc. Discussions are more productive, but who knows how long it'll take to get consensus? <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 22:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I agree with Fetchcomms. The clock is always ticking. <span style="white-space:nowrap">[[User:Guoguo12|<
:::::RFCs usually run for 30 days unless a consensus becomes overwhelmingly clear before then. While consensus is harder to interpret than raw numbers, it is Wikipedia's primary decision making model. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is Wikipedia's primary decision making model, but people tend to interpret consensus differently. <span style="white-space:nowrap">[[User:Guoguo12|<
:I agree with Fetch that this '''should be over''', 2 months were promised and we're now closer to a year, than we are to 2 months. However I do not think a poll will help the mess. One unbinding poll after another caused the current disaster. What we should do is look at the origional poll, count the !votes, and if the keeps are over 75% we keep it to some extent, if not we have the whole thing deleted, removed, and blocked [[User:Sumsum2010|<
::Wait, the original poll? [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage|This poll]]? From ''five months ago''? Furthermore, if 75% support means keeping it "to some extent", ''what extent''? See? It's unclear, which means that there will be another RfC or something of the sort, and who knows if there will be any consensus there. <span style="white-space:nowrap">[[User:Guoguo12|<
:::Yes, that seemed to be inteded to be the all deciding, main, and only poll. To the extent of continuing testing. This has become very unclear and what is actually going on becoming more confuing. [[User:Sumsum2010|<
::::Well, it ''is'' quicker than taking another poll. :/ <span style="white-space:nowrap">[[User:Guoguo12|<
I agree with the new poll, IF there is any significant push for implementation. If there is not, we can retire the PC without it. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00; background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 64:
<big>☻☻☻[[User:s8333631|Sithman]] [[User talk:s8333631| VIII !]][[Special:Randompage|!]]☻☻☻</big> 08:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
:Very much agreed. Especially since, usually, what Jimmy wants Jimmy gets. —
Since, unfortunately, the discussion appears to be turning less meta, I will also state that, for the record, I am against the implementation of pending changes. It is extremely confusing for newcomers, produces a vast, intractable backlog, and, regardless of its actual mechanics, will get us some very bad press. Also, I'm uncomfortable with the grey areas around BLPvio, blatant vandalism, subtle vandalism, hoax information, good-faith inaccurate information, good-faith and accurate but poorly formatted, etc. Where do we draw the line? Wherever we choose to, people will regularly cross it. Pretty soon we've got a systemic censorship-machine. Not cool.☻☻☻[[User:s8333631|Sithman]] [[User talk:s8333631| VIII !]][[Special:Randompage|!]]☻☻☻ 11:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 73:
===View of TheIguana===
My main concern with Pending Changes is it essentially requires a new class of users (Reviewers). I really do not think this fits well with Wikipedia as this introduces more user hierarchy and may act to discourage users from becoming active in the community by putting up barriers on the kinds of additions/help users can make. –<
:But why does that have to be an inherent part of the system? I think of PC as an alternative to semi-protection. From this perspective, a new user can go to a PC-controlled page and edit immediately, with the review typically taking a matter of minutes and rarely more than an hour. If the page is semi-protected, new users have a hard barrier against editing and can only contribute with an edit request on the talk page. PC seems much more open in this regard to me. Furthermore, there's no reason Reviewers has to be such an explicit class: we could, if PC is formalized by policy and continued indefinitely, arrange to grant reviewer status to all users meeting certain thresholds, just as we do for autoconfirmed but more stringent. But realistically, pending changes seem to be getting reviewed quite quickly and the barrier to become a reviewer seems fairly low. Is there a real problem there? [[User:Zachlipton|Zachlipton]] ([[User talk:Zachlipton|talk]]) 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 81:
:Wikipedia is voluntary work, vandalism is a time sink of voluntary work. German Wikipedia is right to protect quality work from vandals, making the quality voluntary work useless, requiring voluntary work just to keep the status quo. Some vandalism has system, when it attacks quality Wikipedia, when it attacks a neutral, unbiased, quality information source. In a way, some vandalism is a form of censorship. Any tool that slows down vandalism is valid. The objective is to diminish the required voluntary work, PC and reviewing or no PC and rollback are the choices. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 19:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::If vandalism's a time sink of voluntary work, then so are non-automated means of dealing with it - including Pending Changes. You just issued your own [[Anti-Life Equation|Anti-PC Equation]]. —
===View of Ost316===
Line 147:
::::::How about this: a pending changes level just for IPs, not autoconfirmed users. Vandals want their edits live on articles with a lot of traffic. This would reduce the amount of work required just to keep the quality/ credibility of an article, as if the edit does not get live, it is not interesting anymore. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 19:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::That assumes a desire for attention, not a desire to disrupt, as several LTAs prefer to do. Against those, PC is counterproductive because a coordinated attack can lock an article down worse than any semi-protection we do ever could. —
::::::::If this is true then semi-protection is the tool of choice. Desire to disrupt could be sponsored censorship, must be stopped to mantain credibility, quality, of neutral, unbias wikipedia. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 09:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Chris, since when did 4chan, Encyclopædia Dramatica, and the GNAA have corporate sponsorship? Seriously, stop with the conspiracy theories; you're looking like a [[Shin Megami Tensei|Mesian]] propagandist. —
===View of DustFormsWords===
Line 163:
*One more point. Simplicity is a virtue. Look at the pre-Pc protection policy. there were three states (excluding move protection) that an article could exist in. It could be unprotected, semi'd or fully protected. Imagine for a minute that you undertook to explain the protection policy to a wikipedia neophyte. Pick a smart relative or friend and try explaining the pre-PC policy. It is startlingly simple. Unprotected articles mean that anyone can make any change without registering an account. Semi-protected articles mean that only registered accounts can make changes. Full protection means that no one can make changes. Obviously there are some nuances I missed. Full protection means admins can change the articles but as an empirical regularity they tend not to. Semi-protection extends to non-autoconfirmed accounts, but this is a minor quibble. Dropping those two caveats the protection policy can be explained to somone who has never before edited wikipedia inside of three sentences. You could put it on the back of a napkin and explain it to a congressman. How many more sentences need to be added before you can get a functioning explanation of PC and how it interacts with the current protection policy?
Thanks. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*:Protonk, George W. Bush was indeed put on PC protection during the legitimate two-months portion of the trial. It got overloaded with bad edits and had to be re-semi'd. Same goes for [[Barack Obama]]. —
===View of Rivertorch===
Line 200:
==='''View of The Master of Mayhem'''===
I agree with the view of the Canadian. I mean, what is the point of pending changes? It works fine, but it should be named "pending crap" because it's impossible that one reviewer has the same method as another (unless they're the same person using 2 accounts, which I don't think is possible!) so what were they doing? Did the Wikipedia staff have surgery and then thought of this while they were recovering? But that doesn't mean that PC doesn't work. It helps keep out possibly unwelcome edits for example. I'm sorry, but if I was in control my vote would be a '''Neutral'''.--[[User:The Master of Mayhem|<
== Is it broken? ==
Line 235:
'''Any further discussion or voting is completely and utterly useless until everyone is working from the same information.'''
[[User:Sven Manguard|<
I hope you don't mind if I answer these issues as I understand them. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 21:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 303:
:I also remind you that the Foundation that you represent said, "the community requested, a 60-day trial. At the end of that, unless the community clearly requests otherwise, we'll turn it back off."<span class="plainlinks"><sup>[http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/106702/match=pending+changes j5]</sup></span> - and that 60% was apparently sufficient for ''temporary continuation''. Well, the 2-month trial has been ongoing for eight months and counting. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Seconded''', Wnt. There was discussion for a trial, nothing else. We never had a vote for it to be fully enabled, or to continue as a fixed thing. A trial is a trial, the consensus was to continue only the trial, not for it to be taken as read that it was a done deal. The hard stop date <
::Well, the thing is, it isn't fully enabled either. Less than 1000 articles are affected, and admins apparently get some sort of a message discouraging them from adding any more. So the people who think it should be rolled out now aren't getting what they want either. It's just a bureaucratic anomaly. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 05:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 318:
::Yea, it looks to me like it was never turned off because nobody ever actually asked for it to be turned off. The people who didn't want it turned off probably assumed the people who did would make such a request. In any event, I agree it's not worth getting caught up in that now. Perhaps process failed us there and everybody thought somebody else was minding the details or making the final determination. It doesn't really matter, we need to focus first on if we are keeping it or not, not whether it should have already been turned off. It would be silly to turn it off only to turn it back on again later, and there's no rush that I can see. The crux of the issue should be this: is pending changes a good thing or not? Is it causing harm? Is it preventing vandalism? If it isn't causing harm and is preventing vandalism then we should keep it, regardless of any past errors in process. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:::How could we have made such a request without the supporters claiming that we were asking another parent, given they had a majority in the poll? —
::::I don't know, but the point is the focus of this discussion should not be "why wasn't it turned off" but rather "are we going to keep it." Lets not dwell on how it might have been done differently and instead focus on moving forward. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Isn't the argument of "stupid to turn it off only to turn it back on again" exactly the reason it wasn't turned of immediately last time, and why it's still on (without consensus) now? I do not think it would be pointless to turn it off, as it would finally bring a halt to this headlong charge and allow users to talk about this logically and fairly. - [[User:Kingpin13|Kingpin]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kingpin13|13]]</sup> ([[User talk:Kingpin13|talk]]) 01:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 405:
:: One of the original trial's condition was that PC will be taken off as soon as the trial ended. Sadly, many are still in place and then WMF promised to have a solution by November. That's two broken promises already. Take it off first before any meaningful discussion can continue. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color:green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 19:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:::We have had two major polls since then anf both supported continued use of the tool, its time ot let go of such emotional thoughts and look at the value of the tool now. As for the upgrades, the tool is better and thanks to the people that worked on that but until the community either accepts it or rejects it their will be no more improvements, so its make your mind up time. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::We have no reason to look at the value of the tool because the Foundation and supporters like you lied to us twice already. Time to end this attempted fait accompli. —
:::::Aw, diddums, welcome to the adult world. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::Mind not being condescending? —
:::::::Only if you don't mind not referring to me as a liar. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::But you have. You promised the community two months and reneged hard on that; the devs promised a fixed version but from what I'm hearing they've more-or-less reneged on that as well. How can you not be a liar? —
:::::::::I am trying my hardest not to respond in kind, please stop calling me a liar it is a personal attack and you are repeating it again. I am a supporter and a user of the tool only, I am just a volunteer editor, not a paid employee or even an administrator, I have lied about nothing. I don't care about the two months trial and that there is or was no consensus to continue. usage, ignore all rules if it benefits the project would be my comment. I would just roll out the tool and wouldn't even listen to your comments but that does not make me a liar, please stop your personal attacks. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 10:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*I'd say turn it off. At this point, it's much less useful than semi-protection. And I'm saying this as someone who used to strongly endorse it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 417:
*I would still like to see it turned off. I've tried to work with it, and have even added it to articles a couple of times, but it's rarely helpful, it's slow, and I still find it awkward to use. [[User:SlimVirgin|<span style="color:black;">SlimVirgin</span>]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<span style="color:gold;">TALK<nowiki>|</nowiki></span>]][[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|<span style="color:lime;">CONTRIBS</span>]]</sup></small> 23:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*Yes, I'd like to see it turned off. I admit I'm one of those who would like to see all articles with some kind of protection, but like SlimVirgin says above, I find it very awkward to use, and I don't see it helping much. I did not notice a decrease in vandal activity in the articles I watched that had it enabled. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 00:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*It should go off. Consensus was never reached for it to remain on, and is tecically still in the ''way'' overextended trial phase. [[User:Sumsum2010|<
*Turn it off. Half a year into a two month trial, and I still haven't seen a single actual benefit from it, and lots and lots of time going into it. Contributor time is the single most limited resource this project has, and this feature burns through that priceless resource for no particular benefit. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 07:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Kill it. Hell, if you do, you may win back some of the community you screwed over by extending it well past it's two month period! —
*Turn it on and turn off the people opposing it. ;) It's not perfect but it does add a layer of protection that is most definitely needed on some articles. Like many others, I found it confusing to use but I'm sure it can be fixed. If anyone doubts that it's needed, try editing the articles related to any Disney TV program for a while and you'll see it's a far better option than semi-protection. What we do need to do, first, is tighten up and formalise [[WP:PC]]. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 11:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep it''' and improve it. It's a useful tool to deal with vandalism and while it's substantially more complex than semi-protection, it also allows editing that semi does not. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 15:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it keep it!''' It allows IPs to edit, gf's! --[[User:Perseus8235|'''<span style="cursor:crosshair;color:White;background:darkseagreen">Perseus</span>''']][[User talk:Perseus8235|'''<span style="cursor:crosshair;color:darkseagreen;background:White">8235'''</span>]] 16:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*:I can be just as vehement about PC/FR: [[Seiken Densetsu 3|DieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDieDie]]... —
*I'd like to remind everyone that we are not voting, and to ask again that discussion in this section be limited to reasons to keep or reject pending changes. Reasons based on the tool itself and its usefulness, not reasons to be angry at whoever it is believed is to blame for it not being turned off already. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 462:
:Some of the article that are currently semi protected could be switched to PC and some of the borderline cases could have it applied. It allows a more nuanced approach to vandalism.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 23:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
*This is where we desperately need some analysis of how it has performed, in the trial. In which circumstances was it beneficial, and which were not so good? Surely it isn't too hard to gather such information; I really did think that was the point of a trial. We should be able to compare articles with a similar prior history of vandalism which a) had PC b) had semi, and compare and contrast? And then we might be able to make informed comments regarding possible future implementations. We're shooting in the dark here. We had a trial, but we haven't analysed the results. If the trial didn't produce any meaningful results, then perhaps we can plan a new trial which will do so. If we remove it from all current, we'd have additional data to look at - seeing if the article problems are increased or reduced when they don't have PC.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 03:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*:Agreed. Someone neutral needs to crunch the numbers and come up with hard data. Until then, this section is sorely premature. —
*I think this needs to be left up to admins' discretion. Inevitably, if we start drawing up criteria for articles to be eligible for PC, not all that are eligible would benefit from it and there will be some (possibly many) that could benefit from it but are excluded by the criteria. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ Mitchell'''</span>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]] 14:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Only''' when it meets the present requirements for semi-protection ''and'' is a high profile BLP article or one about a currently popular individual, and ''possibly'' in similar articles that are not BLPs but have BLP problems. There never was consensus for using it in non-BLPs--every admin who has done so has applied it without justification in policy & provided an argument why leaving to admin discretion is dangerous. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 05:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 522:
:I second this sentiment. Pending changes complicates the matter without reducing the workload. On articles with pending changes, vandals can still vandalize, and we still have to revert it, and at the same time, we have to manually approve legitimate edits by the designated underclass. Thus the workload is not lessened (compared to semi-protection, which locks out the designated underclass), and the matter is made more complicated. Thus, '''pending changes must die'''. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 04:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:Agreed, too. wvbailey's rebuttal of TeleporterMan below is a laundry list of reasons why I've staunchly opposed PC from the start, not the least of which is the "fuck IPs" mentality. —
:Thirded. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 17:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 539:
::* removing PC from all the articles to which it has been applied and
::* prohibiting its use
::until and if consensus has been reached about it going forward, and if so where and how, would satisfy the tech staff's desire not to spend time on it any more, while at the same time preserving the programming, and allow the discussion to go forward without having to decide whether or not to "extend" the trial any further. If I were to guess, however, I strongly suspect that there's an extremely high chance that the current status quo is going to become permanent by default. Best regards, [[User:TransporterMan|'''<
=== re TransporterMan's list of questions: wvbailey's opinion ===
::* ''whether IP or newcomer editors ought to be allowed to edit at all'': NO. There should be a "published version" which is (somehow) determined by "the community" to be solid enough to publish, and behind it a shadow version that ''is'' editable by all. How the shadow copy would turn into the published version would be an interesting process, indeed;
Line 554:
:::*''[The decline in active editors is not a real problem]. How many articles do we need?'' You're conflating active editors with article writers. Most of us don't write anew; we mainly edit what's already there. A decline in active editors is an issue. And how will it fix itself?
:::*''[Wikipedia is not overly bureaucratic].'' This is disingenuous to say the least, as you have to perform the Vogon Dance (send edits in triplicate, etc. etc.) to edit unless you're tenured. We need ''less'' bureaucracy, and Pending Chains/Fragged Revisions adds ''more'' bureaucracy.
:::*''Back 5 years ago, any newbie contribution (I too was a newbie back then) might have had a certain contstructive weight.''<small>[sic]</small> Baloney. Out of all the IPs I've seen, I've seen quite a few dedicated good-faith editors who have refused to register. Are you suggesting that they get thrown under the bus? —
=== PC was a trial, so where are the results? ===
Line 594:
:This is the sort of mission creep that gets people worried. It's one thing to use PC as a substitute for semi-protection, but another to go festooning it over large portions of the encyclopedia. The whole magic of the idea is still that any kid can come on and edit an article and see his changes come up right away. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 18:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::That magic is kinda spoiled when you are a minor notable person that is demeaned across the www for months by content published through wikipeda as someone that fucks his mother. Not very magic is it? Are you happy with that magic? I tell you, you are not notable and if you were notable to be soiled like that you wouldn't think it was very magic at all. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 21:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::That blade cuts both ways - say you are a minor notable person who wants to hide the fact he diddles little kids... —
::::Yea, right, we have a lot of that, please provide diffs. Firstly you need to accept that these less notable BLP articles are not watched by anyone sometimes and accept that defamatory content is inserted to some of these articles by unconfirmed accounts. Then you need to ask yourself - do I give a fucking damn about that, many people don't, they are just users here and have no responsibility to anything, we have some users that in all good faith are against the project, unidentified users and many are children and they simply don't give a fuck about anything, never mind some subject being labeled a pedophile for months, so what. It will be removed sooner or later, so what why should I care about jonny smith being a minor celebrity and wikipedia publishing he fucks his mother, I don't like pending and there is no consensus to trial anymore...yada yada yada. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 21:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad we are having a rational discussion. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 21:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 623:
::I'm worried about this system scaling anywhere near 100,000 articles, much less 1,000,000... where are we going to find the reviewer time to do all that extra work? I don't think we will find it, because it doesn't exist, not in the quantity that would be required. And what time this new enormous backlog did get would be drawn off from some other activity... [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 00:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:::The wheels won't drop off and the level will naturally stabilize where it is controllable, lets give it a try, I don't see any backload worries, there is not time limit for additions to the BLP articles of semi notable people bots will do most of the start up work and we can take it from there. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Firstly, I would remind Chzz that removing PC would necessitate Semi-prot on a few thousand articles, making them unaccessable to IP's until the ''entire'' community is able to agree on something with what would probably need to be 67% consensus. The last poll got around 65%, so it might not be that hard, unless the bar is raised (which would make consensus impossible via the law of very large populations.) Further, Courcelles, if you check the PC page, the Devs are working on a Huggle-like review system, and bots could easily patrol edits for blatant vandalism (in fact, CluebotNG has been hugely successful in reverting actual vandalism with a false positive rate of .1%.) My primary concern with PC is deployment on articles for which it is not suited, like high traffic BLP's and other high risk articles that simply have to be Semi-Protected. I'm all for another trial, but use it on low traffic articles, and set the consensus bar at a reasonable level. [[User:Ronk01|<
::*Not "thousands" - less than 1,000 articles are protected by PC. <small>(951 articles, 7 test pages, 2 other <sup>[[Wikipedia:Meetup/India|1]],[[Wikipedia:Contact_us|2]]</sup>, 10 redirects, as of now)</small>
::*We don't necessarily need to semi-protect them all; in some cases, no protection may be fine.
Line 630:
::# So we open these articles to IP editing, knowing that they will be vandalized?
::#Yes, and that system is rarely used, slow to respond, and almost unknown.
::#I apologize, I miscalculated. There was and is no supermajority (the real world word for "consensus") favoring ''any'' action regarding PC. Thus the second poll was conducted, which ran under simple majority by fiat (something that we don't like, but is nonetheless policy) And indicated that 60% of editors support PC in is current form (if you count the editors who voted close because they wanted to fix a technical error, or only read WP:Consensus and WP:Poll, it goes up to over 2/3 support of PC in some form) I agree that there are a few things that need word, better metrics are needed, and policy needs to be rectified; but that all justifies (or necessitates) continuing use, not removal and exposure of hundreds of articles to libelous content. PC does work, it may not be efficient yet, but it does work. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::You're concerned about some 900-odd articles being exposed - and not even that, 'coz they can be semi'd. We have, at the very least, over 100,000 with BLP content that currently have no protection at all.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 20:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 637:
:::These 900 are just the tip of the trial iceberg, there is no impasse at all, just an ongoing desire to improve and protect the project. So if you are concerned then lets trial on 100, 000 BLP articles that have almost no watchers - do you have another idea to protect them from being defamed? [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I'm not discounting that as an option, Off2riorob. I suspect I'd push for a more phased test before planting it on such a huge number of articles - and certainly I'd push for much clearer policies, some tech improvements, and working out measurable results. But I think - despite all appearances - we're singing from the same hymnbook. I also appreciate that the problem is urgent - but, it's been urgent for years. Let's keep talking. My current thoughts, from this RfC, are that we might be able to firstly come to a consensus agreement to remove it (end the first trial; draw a line under that), and then to start building consensus for what we'd need, in order to evaluate it more thoroughly (a new trial, of, IDK, top-of-my-head, 3333 articles per month for 3 months, running for 6 months in total, gathering certain pre-agreed stats, comparing with a broadly-equivalent set of another 10,000 articles that we leave? These are embryonic thoughts in my mind only, not to be taken too seriously; I'd want to see each specific debated and consensus formed. I'd hope it possible that even some of the most staunch nay-sayers might agree to something like that if they can help us set up the measurables. If nothing else, it'd be a chance for them to show that PC doesn't work. Am I dreaming, in thinking we could form consensus about something like that? <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 20:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::I can assure you that based on the last poll, consensus to remove PC will be impossible to gain, unless there has been a significant change in attitudes toward PC in the last couple of months. I do like the idea of a fresh trial though, as I've noted as an option below. [[User:Ronk01|<
::::::I've tried to avoid complaining about the past polls, but the issue that we now need to meet some special threshold to remove PC after it was snuck in under a 2 month trial really rankles. When the trial was proposed this ''exact'' issue was brought up by opponents and dismissed as fantasy by proponents. We could NEVER start a 2 month trial and then just continue it on the basis of status quo bias. But that is exactly what happened. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 04:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I agree. However, at this point I don't care anymore how we got here. The proponents have invested a lot of energy in wearing us down, so we might us well let them claim a victory. Why they put all their energy into this particular battle is beyond me. Some of them have even recently said that a new trial should be on different articles, which was one of my main points for shutting down the old trial. The end result is of course that no one will believe any time limits on a new trial, so I don't see how it's even possible to propose such a thing. They have forced us into a situation of debating full implementation, whatever that may be, without another time-limited trial. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 04:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Agreed only partially with UncleDouggie. The only reason we're in this situation is via fiat of Jimbo Wales. And as a counterpoint, how long until someone approves a stealthy BLP violation, Off2riorob? And I do mean "When", not "If". As above, so below. —
:::::::::True, but how long until a stealthy BLP violation is added to a page without protection? Oh, wait, that's happening ''all the time'' now. [[User:Ronk01|<
::::::::::Ronk, don't act stupid. You and I and practically everyone else knows that PC is an alternative means of protection, so comparing it to unprotected articles is comparing apples to oranges. —
:::::::::::Actually, some of the more recent proposals have indicated widespread use on currently unprotected BLPs. [[User:Ronk01|<
::::::::::::PC is still a variant of protection, Ronz. —
:::::::::::::Yes, I never debated that. Thus I fail to see your point. [[User:Ronk01|<
::::::::::::::What exactly is the PC reviewer's responsibility to prevent such additions? If a vandal writes that the daughter is a porn star, followed by a reference to an offline book or magazine article, is the PC reviewer supposed to look up and find out if it's a real book? Read it and see if the article says what it says, even if it's offline or behind a paywall? Because a vandal can learn quickly enough to make up such detail, if it really is required to keep a change in. Meanwhile, if a reviewer isn't required to make such a detailed research, is he still liable for "publishing" the acceptance? Especially if the IP editor is from, say, an internet cafe in Indonesia, while the reviewer lives in the same litigious Western country as the subject of the article? Probably it will be safer for the reviewer to simply reject any unflattering sounding change, regardless of validity, without examination. And I think that's what will happen. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 15:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Im my personal experience, I've never hit a paywall when researching a claim, but I suppose it could happen. Those kinds of claims generally require more than once source anyway, so I would reject based on policy, not CYA. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::::::::::::::As a reviewer you should operate basically as you would on any other article. In the hypothetical case mentioned, you have the added benefit that while you review the content is not on display to the www so I would google search the claim and if there was absolutely nothing in the returns then I would perhaps attempt to access the book online if I couln't and I had been unable to find an accessable online verification of contentious desired addition then I would remove it with an edit summary of, controversial claim with unaccessible supporting citation please move to discussion on the talkpage and post a comment on the users talkpage and the article talkpage asking for some discussion of the addition. Vandals can learn to be tricky but a bit of talkpage discussion and the realization that their desired vandal edits are no longer appearing in the search result or the article usually gets them moving on. I have found that there is a degree of feedback amongst editors and occasionally I give and get a note that a review I did was incorrect, but if you take the usual vandal fighting and editorial guidelines into consideration you will never accept anything that would be ''unacceptable content''.[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 01:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:(reindent) "[...]a bit of talkpage discussion and the realization that their desired vandal edits are no longer appearing in the search result or the article usually gets them moving on." You're assuming attention-seekers, Off2riorob, not hit-n-run, LTA, or stealth vandals, which are just as common if not more so. —
::Yes, there are different types of vandal type additions and levels of detrimental additions, I myself deal with all edits on all articles I watch in the same way whatever the level of protection. ''Hit and run'' - they just get reverted and I think they would be less attracted to bother on articles where their vandal addition never gets published but that is currently a hypothetical statistic. LTA - is a new one on me.. Stealth vandals - imo these guys are dealt with in the same way as an attention seeker but they never show up for the discussion. The issue for me is that we know that articles with few watchers are having vandal additions remain in them for lengthy periods so what are we going to do about it? Pending protects them from such additions. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 09:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Are you telling me you've never dealt with a [[WP:List of banned editors|banned user]]? I have - and I have actually seen one successfully disrupt a PC-protected article with a horde of sock-/meatpuppets. —
::::As I saw the trial progress experienced admins soon learned that in such situations semi protection was preferable. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::The example I witnessed was shortly after the trial entered it's "Dictator Wales' Fiat" phase. —
:Off2riorob, that's an interesting interpretation, but it is not in-keeping with [[Wikipedia:Reviewing|the trial guideline]], which says it is just {{xt|to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits}}. Perhaps you could make these suggestions on [[WP:VPP]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 04:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 680:
:For all of these reasons, I've been insisting since the start of this - that we remove it, now, from all articles. And then we try to learn from our mistakes, and move onwards. FWIW, I would also support some form of new trial, on condition that we had a very clear remit for it, arrived at through consensus. As the meta essay says, {{xt|Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing.}} <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 00:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::<unorganized rant> Chzz, would you care to explain how you wish to conduct a discussion among 600+ editors (basing this on the last poll) There are many, many editors here with strong opinions on PC, and it seem that they are the only ones who really comment on PC (in fact, nearly all of the editors involved in the first poll voted in the second) RfC's tend to raw similar crowds. Another measure needs to be taken. Perhaps some form of Signpost promoted ongoing '''Straw'''poll (no real meaning, just so we can get an idea of what the community at large thinks.) </unorganized rant> [[User:Ronk01|<
:::I have great faith in consensus, Ronk01. We've dealt with other contentious issues, e.g. [[Talk:Muhammad/images|images of Muhammad]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=Gda%C5%84sk+Danzig+prefix%3ATalk%3AGda%C5%84sk%2F&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 Gdańsk/Danzig]. The latter did go through [[Talk:Gdansk/Vote|some voting]] but, with quite clear, specific points - and after considerable discussion.
:::The 600+ people don't have 600+ totally distinct viewpoints. There are certainly some quite different views, but I'm still confident that consensus can be accomplished. I think that the comments in this RfC already have brought out the issues, and lead to a better understanding - and I thank everyone who has contributed. We have no deadline; we'll get there. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 19:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, and in the meantime, libelous comments are being added to BLPs and instantaneously mirrored across the web before anyone gets to them. Trying to establish consensus here is like herding cats. I would remind you that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a social experiment, not a club, and most certainly not an anarchy. Regarding viewpoints, yes, there are 600 different viewpoints, every edeitor has some image of what they want PC to be, or indeed not be. Reconciling those viewpoints is difficult, because they run from Jeremy's "never talk about PC again!!!" to the views of others who refuse to accept anything other than flagged revs on every page. The unfortunate fact is that the extremes of opinion are represented here, not the means. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::With or without PC, defamation is posted on Wikipedia and mirrored all over the net - for example, every few minutes a new attack page is created. We zap 'em pretty quickly, but still, Google Cache has them for a while - and other sites do too.
:::Reconciling the views is indeed difficult, but not impossible.
Line 692:
::::Unless Jeremy has changed his mind, he was still flat refuse.
::::I suppose I should be more clear, the editors of this RfC have a vested interest, or some string motivation for expressing their opinions.
[[User:Ronk01|<
* Chzz, do you understand that until a desired addition from a unconfirmed ip address is reviewed and accepted by a reviewer it is not visible? not published to the web? [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 698:
::I understand that, with current implementation, revisions that have not been accepted are not visible to logged-out users, only to logged-in, except when they click 'edit' (in which case they are editing the latest revision). That isn't quite the same as 'not published to the web'. Websites wishing to monitor the most controversial aspects of Wikipedia could easily see non-approved revisions if they wished, and–at the risk of sounding argumentative–one distinct possibility is, that it would make it ''easier'' for them to see which edits were more controversial, ie those flagged as needing review.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 20:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
<s>:::User:Chzz - that is simple nonsense - please provide a singe citation to support this has ever happened - don't bother it hasn't. Are you as a living person prepared to take responsibility legally for your attempts to remove protection form articles that are being defamed, if so please provide your contact details.</s> [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 21:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC) [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 21:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::::May we please avoid Legal discussion. Let's leave that to General Counsel. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::::'''note''' - my comment has been pointed to as a legal threat, its not at all its a reminder of the facts. You are all legally responsible for your contributions, you are not faceless users, and no one is protecting you, on request the foundation will give your details to anyone that has a decent reason, if that threatening then then that is just the truth. Users seem to think they are faceless and protected by some imaginary legal team, well your not. This is not a threat its something you should bear in mind when you contribute. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 16:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::I was not suggesting that your comment was a legal threat, merely that such legal concerns are not something we need to be concerned about. If the foundation thought that there was a legitimate legal concern, they would take action. With regards to the release of personaly identifiable information, the privacy policy clearly states that this cannot occur without a valid subpoena, which would not be granted unless the user was directly responsible for a clearly illegal action, never because they wanted to discuss a form pf protection for a little longer. [[User:Ronk01|<
::::::No not you Ronk it was user Kingpin on my talkpage - editors details will be released on request of a valid request that is the simple fact of play, ands all users should follow as responsible a position as possible to protect themselves against that. The bottom line is - We all have a duty of care to protect the living subjects of our articles to the best of our ability and with all means at our disposal. I doubt if the legal advisors to the foundation would come out and say it, but as I see it the foundation is further protected from defamation and libel suits by implementation of such an additional protection tool. The idea is not to legally threaten anyone but to point users towards the bigger picture than their individual positions and personal objections to completely minor issues, such as the historic main objection here that the tool should have been switched of five months ago and its a bit slow.User should ask themselves - ok, I don't support this tool to help protect living people from being defamed through wikipedia, then, what do I support to protect those living people.[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 17:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::*It was not a legal threat. It's fine. Just discussion.
Line 714:
Can we return to my original question? It was "How do we determine "effectiveness"?" <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 21:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
:If it has been designed to allow unconfirmed accounts more possibility to post than semi protection would only allow an edit request on the talkpage, and to keep untrue and malicious content from the article then it is effective. First you need to determine what you want to compare it to? [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
::Hoi, Off2riorob, remember PC's only as good as CRASH's membership is. It's not infallible because humans aren't infallible. How long until a reviewer approves a stealth-vandalism edit? —
:::I imagine that has likely happened already, as you say reviewers are not perfect by any means. I know at least one reviewer that doesn't review edits in anything close to the way I described in the section above and I have seen false additions and uncited false content accepted but I have never seen content accepted that could be described as harmful to the subject or demeaning. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 09:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::::But how long until vandalism is inserted into a previously unprotected page? Oh, wait, it's happening right now. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::::Does anyone here think that there is any ''possible'' validity to Off2rio's sort-of-struck-out legal claim that Pending Changes is '''''addictive?''''' That if it's applied to an article, you risk legal liability for yourself or Wikipedia if you remove it? Because if that were true, obviously we would need a hard, all-out, eternal ban on the application of Pending Changes to ''any'' new article, and we'd have to delete all the articles to which it had previously been "experimentally" applied and start over, or maybe salt the topics permanently. A permanent policy ban on experimentation ''in general'' might also be appropriate. I don't think it's true, but just for purposes of discussion, we have to consider what would be required to save Wikipedia. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 17:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 733:
#Set a definitive bar for consensus for retention at 2/3.
In either case, it would be appreciated if we could discuss the merits, not the politics of PC here, it seems to me that we might actually get something done if we do. [[User:Ronk01|<
:<small>It seems much more likely that we'd get something done if there weren't people putting the words "broken promises" in quotes when referring to the events surrounding PC, and downgrading the significance of these events... --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 20:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)</small>
Line 744:
I will write more here as soon as I can. Thanks. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 20:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::I should mention that the above is not a poll, rather it is a proposal for one, along with several other things. I very much want to discuss my proposal, and work out something functional and agreeable. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::Many thanks, Ronk01! Phew. My quick posting, above, was aimed at heading 'em off at the pass, before we got a whole string of "support", "oppose", etc! -I am very grateful to you, for drawing up those concise points-for-debate. But yep, we need to discuss the points before people start counting up numbers again! Thanks for your understanding. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 20:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
*Yes, I too think we need to start with discussion. I'm not sure what is meant by the two "If" sections, because it seems to me that any straw poll would seek to determine which of the two scenarios would be the case, so we would not choose one beforehand. But I like the idea of evaluating it only on the technical merits and not the other issues, and I like the idea of setting, at the start, a defined threshold. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, the lack of a threshold on the first poll was a major issue. The bar kept being moved.[[User:Ronk01|<
Points 1,2,3 are useless, unless WMF will accept #4. We need input from {{user|Steven (WMF)}}, on that concern. Ie, are WMF willing to compromise on continued development of the extension if enwiki support further trials but not necessarily acceptance of implementation? We need an answer to that, before we can form this proposal. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 767:
::::::::Great so PC is currently on ( like the light above ). Therefore we need 66.6+1% to vote against it to turn it off. I guess I could live with that but still do not think it terribly fair. :-) [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 19:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::When I said earlier that I like the idea of a fixed threshold, I wasn't sure what that threshold should be. The most important thing is to decide the rules at the start, instead of changing them mid-process. But I now think the 2/3 number makes better sense than 50/50. It's clear that everyone, on both sides of the discussion, regards this decision as an important one. For issues that require unambiguous consensus for change, we have plenty of precedent for requiring a supermajority—just consider RfA/RfB. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, but remember that RfA/RfB are generally small discussions compared to this, so 2/3 is perfect here, anything higher, like the 70% needed for RfX would be unreasonable. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::::::::::Sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree with you. I meant that 2/3, not something even higher, would make good sense, but I was just pointing out that we use even higher thresholds in some well-known cases. But higher than 2/3 would indeed be too high here. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not a problem, it's nice to know that there is a level of approval for 2/3 consensus. (Am I the only one who is amused at the idea of consensus for consensus?) [[User:Ronk01|<
{{od}}
While everybody here seems to be happily discussing voting thresholds, I feel I should just share my view on this, which is I do not think polls are the way forward for PC. No matter how well planned, they just seem to me to be fundamentally the wrong way to go about this. I can explain my thoughts on why polls are a bad move, but it's fairly typical stuff we've all heard before, one only needs to read [[Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage|these]] [[Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll|two]] discussion pages to see all the things which can go wrong. - [[User:Kingpin13|Kingpin]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kingpin13|13]]</sup> ([[User talk:Kingpin13|talk]]) 22:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:No polls. The first one had mercurial guidelines, and the second one was instituted to save face after the first one failed. —
::I would appreciate the restriction of ideological complaints and arguments here. Thank you. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::The first poll, however, *did* have mercurial guidelines. The rules frequently changed in the course of polling to address concerns, and the second poll was then used after the first poll closed in an effort to wash away the taste of the first poll by making sure the rules didn't change. —
::::That it did. The second poll was an attempt to prevent mass craziness. I would advocate more discussion before any more polling. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::::Enough polls, !voting, discussion... May I suggest what some will consider a radical approach? Just dump PC and make editing registration manditory. And here's a fearless prediction: registration is going to be required sooner or later. Let's do it now. [[User:Jusdafax|Jusdafax]] 03:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:PEREN|Not going to happen as that's above all of our paygrades.]] —
:::::::Jeske is quite correct, that is actually not a decision we ''can'' make or enforce. Unfortunately keeping this RFC on point has not so far been achievable, we keep getting off-the-wall proposals like this instead. I certainly don't see any consensus evolving here, just the typical mess that all the recent major policy discussions eventually become. Apparently it is too much to ask for people to limit their comments to specific topics so that we can actually get something done. The one thing I am sure about is that more polls are a very bad idea, but I'm unsure what to do to put this RFC ack on track as nobody will listen to the repeated pleas to limit the conversation to the actual topic of the RFC. Maybe we should start moving threads that do not directly discuss whether we keep PC or not to the talk page? [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I went back to the top of this talk and re-read [[#Purpose]] in that context. It seems to me that we have, by now, discussed to death whether or not to keep PC, and we have established that there are various opinions about that—thus the many talk threads. I fear the only way we will get from a discussion that lacks a clear outcome, to a decision about whether the community wants to keep PC or not, will be by way of a poll. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 798:
:::I have specific problems insofar as it (1) proposes a >10-fold (I don't have exact numbers on the number of articles under PC at any given time in the trial but it has to be at least an order of magnitude lower than 50,000, probably more) increase in a program whose existence is heavily contested. If we are having issues with the program being approved on the basis of status quo bias now it will be impossible to deal with later. (2) Because it conflates the BLP problem with the protection mechanism. We should be asking if this is an appropriate tool for use on the entire encyclopedia. Bringing in the BLP bogeyman (and making vague comments about legal liability) only clouds the discussion just as it did with the request to autmatically delete unreferenced BLPs. (3) The sample size you are proposing is unnecessarily large for a true trial unless that trial is meant only to stress the PC queue. A trial to determine the effect of PC on article quality, editor engagement and any other feature of the protection system need not be in the thousands of articles let alone the tens of thousands. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::::The original trial was around above 2,000 and currently there are around just under 1,000 articles Pending protected. Please correct me if I am wrong someone but there are around a million BLP articles, that would mean adding pending to the least watched five percent of them for this option. The option to just switch off also has some support, if you just want to continue a bit more discussion we can put these four options in sections for individual specific continued discussion and you can add some more if you can think of any that have had support. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::I would reject outright any proposal to make PC encyclopedia wide, but expansion to our least watched BLPs might not be the worst idea. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::::You aren't wrong about the percentage of articles (at least as a gross estimate), but that isn't the variable of interest. The variable of interest is the number of articles in the PC "trial" and proposing a trial of 10-20 times the number of articles in the current trial is tantamount to proposing to indefinitely extend the program. that's only my first objection. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::These are only the supported positions as I have seen them, if you have others please add them. Perhaps we could then focus by opening individual sections to discuss the specific options??? [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 811:
*2/3 consensus is too much, we should never ask for more than the golden ratio (61.8 %). --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 09:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:*Not for a sitewide change, Chris. Anything less than 2/3 is no consensus. And is that golden ratio the amount of people who voted to allow Dictator Wales his coup d'etat? —
== Proposal for way forward ==
Line 825:
#(Alternative 2) If there is considerable support (a 'strong majority') but no consensus, we freeze the implementation and try for a last time to find a consensual proposal. We submit it to the community, and if there is still no consensus, we remove pending changes from articles. Further proposals can be considered with the goal of reaching consensus on one in particular. If no consensus is reached within a period of two years, the implementation is turned off.
[[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 01:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::I would object to your third option, as we would essentially be denying the rights of a majority in favor of a minority, essentially giving them two chances to get what they want. That may be fine for AfD, but major policy changes need to be discussed until consensus is reached. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::Isn't it well established that no consensus amounts to status quo in Wikipedia tradition ? At some point if still no consensus comes, we need to roll back to status quo. It doesn't prevent from continuing discussion though, which I've noted. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 04:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, in AfD's and minor discussions. However, in a major policy change like this, consensus is a must. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::::But what if we can't reach it ? There has never been a consensus for using PC indefinitely, since the trial ended we failed to reach any kind of consensus, so if we still can't reach it, at some point we have to roll back. Then we can continue discussing, but there is presently no legitimacy for continued use of PC. I can see your point though, so I've proposed a softer 'roll back', see alternative 2. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 05:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I would remind you of the Devs position that when PC is turned off, it stays off. We can remove it from all pages, but not actually turn it off until we have consensus to do so. [[User:Ronk01|<
* - Really - this is talk page fodder - please consider and join in - really you are almost not even editing in this discussion or contribution presently to the wikipedia.[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 04:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::I don't have time to edit these days, so what, this is just a proposal to consider. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 04:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 859:
*This is a tough question to answer as we mostly only see our own edits and edits on our watchlist but in my experience obvious [[WP:vandalism]] was rejected by reviewers on sight as they would on an unprotected page on their watchlist. Their is no doubt that having an editor look at the desired addition of an unconfirmed account is more likely to keep vandalism out of the article than a little watched article with no protection and while pending has been on trial I have seen multiple BLP articles vandalized with attack content added and not removed, sometimes for months. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Definitely. I have never seen a case where a reviewer accepted obvious vandalism. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 17:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Agreed. Not sure how any Reviewer could miss obvious vandalism. Especially since many are also Rollbackers and thus experienced vandal fighters. [[User:Ronk01|<
*Yep. --[[User:Joe Decker|joe decker]][[User talk:Joe Decker|<sup><small><i>talk to me</i></small></sup>]] 17:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Having seen it be annihilated at [[Park51]], ''No, PC is superfluous and/or ineffective at stemming obvious vandalism.'' I don't even think the usual Majestic crowd that night even looked at those edits before rolling back and RevDel'ing. —
:The experience of the trial is clear that when large amounts of vandalism additions are occurring the administrators raise the level of protection to semi protection. No one still considers the tool to be useful in such a situation as you are commenting on. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::Again, the example I give above came in the Dictator Wales' Fiat phase of the trial. If it's obvious vandalism and that's all it's ever going to be on an article, why fucking bother with PC when a rollback is just as effective and sucks away far less volunteer time? —
:::Because if an edit is good the first reviewer to check it can mark it as reviewed. But if you just rely on recent changes patrol and watchlisting there might be a dozen editors check the same good edit, and most edits are good ones. Remember the least wasteful way to use volunteer time would be to simply implement it for all articles, as DE wiki did. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::::You're making the assumption that a human reviewer will be knowledgeable and interested enough about the topic to be able to review it first-time around instead of punting it. This is an ultimately fatal assumption to make, especially as regards BLPs (especially corner-cases), areas of particular RW controversy, and as time passes. —
:::::No, that's quite wrong. I've done PC reviewing, NewPages patrolling and RecentChanges patrolling (with Huggle, Igloo etc.). PC (and NP) are far ''better'' if people are going to punt. If I punt on something while Huggling or if I punt on something on my watchlist, there's no guarantee that someone else will pick it up. If I go to review a PC edit and I am not enough knowledable about the subject/article to decide whether it is a constructive edit or not, I can punt on it safe in the knowledge that another reviewer will pick it up. Same with NewPages: if I open up a new page and then for whatever reason I am unable to decide on whether it is a valuable contribution (or needs tagging, CSDing, PRODding, tagging for WikiProject, user warning, whatever), if I don't mark it as patrolled it still remains in the NewPages backlog for up to 30 days. With RC and anti-vandal patrolling, there is no guarantee that anyone else will see it and roll it back.
:::::The fact that an IP editor can add subtle vandalism to a BLP who might then sue the WMF into oblivion is a major concern and one of the reasons I think PC is so potentially valuable. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 23:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 871:
==was lvl 1 PC efficient at preventing clear violations of BLP ?==
*IMO the answer to this question is exactly the same as my answer to the question above. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 16:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''No,''' for the same reasons as above. —
*'''Yes''' "Efficient" isn't the best word, as I would consider "useful" a better claim, but I see frequent new accounts and IP editors on certain political BLPs, which lvl 1 PC is effective in dealing with. [[User:Sxeptomaniac|Sχeptomaniac]]<sup>[[User talk:Sxeptomaniac|χαιρετε]]</sup> 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
==what can we conclude of articles where vandalism is high with PC ?==
*In my experience pending was removed when vandalism was high as semi protection became better for the situation[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 15:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Agreed, the article [[Barack Obama]] is a perfect example of one that needs semi, not PC. [[User:Ronk01|<
*Agree, getting large numbers of revisions needing review where they are only vandalism wastes time. Those articles should be semiprotected. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 17:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*By its very nature, PC is defeated by large numbers of the bozos it's supposed to be filtering. editors of Barack Obama and [[George W. Bush]] found that out to their chagrin; both were on PC for very brief moments before being returned to semiprotection due to extreme vandalism. (The Park51 example I keep referencing doesn't apply in this instance, as that was a JA+4chan attack.) —
==what can we conclude of articles where vandalism is low with PC ? ==
*Generally, I have found that articles that do not get much vandalism do not need PC, with the exception of BLPs. If somebody inserts "penis" into an article on a random village, that will merely be annoying and might make readers doubt Wikipedia's accuracy. However, if defamatory content is inserted into a BLP (in other words, [[libel]]) and the subject sees it—that is something we must try to prevent at all costs. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Agree, minor vandalism like random word insertion is of little concern, since it usually gets reverted by a bot or an RC patroller within a couple of minutes or less. BLP attack vandalism can be more subtle, and would likely escape a bot or perhaps even an RC patroller. PC provides a method for slower, more methodical analysis of an edit. [[User:Ronk01|<
*My experience is slightly different. PC appears to be of great benefit to articles that see persistent problematic edits at low to moderate levels (between once a week and a couple times per day). Two examples of articles that have seen benefits are [[Giada De Laurentiis]], which sees periodic insertions of juvenile comments about her anatomy or marital status, and [[Demagogy]], which sees persistent POV attempts to label currently active political figures as demagogues. Removing the immediate gratification of seeing a problematic edit being instantly featured combined with the extra attention gained by the PC review process has reduced the number of problematic edits needing to be dealt with and limited the impact of said edits when they still occur. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 00:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
*I recently went through our 700 or so articles which contain the word pubic, and corrected 23 of them. It was about three months since my previous patrol and some of the ones I fixed had been there for most of that time. Some of those 23 may have been genuine typos, but I doubt if many of them would have lasted long if the articles had been protected by pending changes. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 01:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 891:
== was lvl 2 PC protection useful in preventing persistent vandals ?==
*I have really only seen one case where PC2 was really necessary: the [[Justin Beiber]] article. Autoconfirmed accounts repeatedly came out of nowhere to vandalize the article. In my opinion, PC2 should only be applied ''with'' semiprotection to high-risk BLPs where autoconfirmed accounts are vandalizing. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 17:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Agree. If the concern is Socks, eliminating concerns from IP edits is a good idea. PC-2 would be great on articles that get quite a bit of sock vandalism, but in combination with semi, it would probably be more efficient. [[User:Ronk01|<
*If there's a coordinated attack or a determined sockpuppeteer, ''No'' because :L2 still has the same overloading weakness as :L1. —
* '''Comment''' - Any article named by [[Stephen Colbert]] on his show is a potential automatic candidate (not guaranteed, just candidate) for PC#2. Even this evening I looked at the history of [[Reality]], a page to which four years ago he said he'd give $5 to the first person to change it to "Reality has become a commodity". As of January 18, 2011, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reality&action=historysubmit&diff=408564445&oldid=408003743 it's still being done]. [[Elephant]] is another page he's named in such segments (something about tripling the population), and a later random visit by him - not editing, just visiting - was apparently right after one Colbert fan edited, but before we caught it again. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 07:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
== was lvl 2 PC protection useful in preventing sockpuppets who are not obvious vandals ? ==
*Short answer (although I have not seen PC 2 in action), '''No.''' Long answer '''Depends on reviewer.''' Anyone unaware of the situation is going to end up exacerbating the situation, a knowledgeable user would be able to ID a sock-/meatpuppet based on what's posted. —
==overall, is the second level a useful addition ==
*That is a good question. PC-2 of course bars all non-Reviewers from making direct edits to a protected page. Though the PC policy specifically disallows its use in disputes, it has seemed to be useful (in those rare cases where it is applied, as far as I know, fewer than 100 pages have ever been PC-2 protected, and none right now) for preventing sock vandalism. Of course, PC-2 is by no means acceptable as a long term method of protection, as it ostracizes many perfectly good editors by refusing to directly accept their edits. However, I would be in favor of retention of it as an alternative to anti-sock Full-prot in some instances. [[User:Ronk01|<
*If Pending Chains is approved, I can only foresee it being useful against slow-moving puppeteers and used as a full-prot substitute. Thus, short answer '''No''', long answer '''Only so long as it is not applied to areas where sockpuppets or LTA sockpuppeteers run rampant, and even then only in line with [[WP:Protection policy|the prot-pol]].''' :L2 will, in other words, be useless in most cases, particularly those involving ArbCom-sanctioned areas or that are the haunts of a LTA. —
:* '''Comment''' - PC#2 is for admins. only to review. Regular reviewers would not have these. It still keeps the vandalism from ever having any face time in the article, which is the intent. Meanwhile, the administrators get to the article quicker because it's automatically flagged for all admins. in the queue, not just for anyone watching the page in the watchlist. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 07:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::Actually, regular reviewers can review PC2 [[User:Ronk01|<
== An alternate way forward ==
Line 916:
Recognizing, above all, that consensus may be "no" to any of the later steps. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 20:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Endorse''' in general. (#2's not really a process, more of a comment.) If Steps A and B are supposed to be sequential in time, I'd recommend that they be simultaneous (which, in effect, would eliminate the difference between A and B). Either way, in B would recommend elimination of "who normally semi-protect articles," since all sysops can do that, or if not eliminated, then define what it means. — [[User:TransporterMan|'''<
:I'll generally endorse this because I feel it is important to disambuguate the "trial" with the "introduction" of the tool. We actually need some data on effect on vandalism, queues, editing, etc (see the drum I'm banging above about this) and a real trial can provide this. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:''''Limited endorsement'''. I have to be concerned about 2 though, as that could lead to BLP libel. Also, as discussed above, PC-2 is best implemented alongside semi-prot. Also, the community did not form any kind of consensus in either poll, thus the claim that "People voted, the poll was closed, that's what it said" is only partially true. The credibility of the discussions themselves seems less damaged than that of the process. [[User:Ronk01|<
:'''Support #1''' - removal from all articles, and removing the vague policy permitting its possible use - clarify that it is to be used ''only'' for testing purposes, not on any live articles (until a possible future date when of course the policy can again change). #2 is not really a proposal as such; of course we should be analysing results, but I don't see why 'proposing' it here will help. For 3,4,5 I'd like to see discussion and consensus on a proposed further trial, with very carefully defined and consens-agreed remits and limitations. But I don't think any of it can happen whilst we remain in this state of flux. Hence, yeah; let's remove it from existing articles to 'clear the air', and then look at it afresh.
Line 939:
::: The statement "the proposal above is totally unworkable and without the possibility of ever getting anywhere" is not borne out by the fact that there are several perpetual participants in this RFC who support it, in part or whole. <span style="font-family:Georgia;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling at work]]</span> 01:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::::There will never ever be a 66 percent support for a new trial as is described in the proposal. Users have little energy for this issue as it is, the trial is over so lets see if the community supports the tools usage or not. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 01:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::The trial only ends once PC is disabled and metrics taken. —
::::::You're kidding, right? I asked Jimbo about this, let's see whether it's still even being developed BEFORE we start all these polls. If it's out of development, then yes, I'll agree we stop using it then. And this is from someone who supported it wholeheartedly. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 04:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::CycloneGU, read the rest of the page. The devs have indicated that they aren't going to develop it further unless there is a consensus that en.wp wants to keep it. —
::::::::My concern is more about the person who created the poll. We need an administrator to administer a fair poll for all users on a unique page. This entire page would take me about two days or more to read in full, and by then another hundred edits would be added. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 05:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Fully agree with Cyclone. Just say no to yet more needless drama. [[User:Jusdafax|<span style="color:green;">Jus</span>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<span style="color:#C1118C;">da</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<span style="color:#0000FF;">fax</span>]] 05:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 950:
:::Ah yes, thanks for the correction, [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikifam=.wikipedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-edit_count&page=Wikipedia%3APending+changes%2FRequest+for+Comment+February+2011&max=100&grouped=on&ofs=0&max=100 here are the users] - although there are around half with only a single comment, its good that there is still a decent degree of interest. I would also like t note that my contribution is greatly inflated by the fact that it usually takes me five edits to correct a single one.[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I '''support''' keeping it. It works if the article doesn't get a lot of traffic and if the article is not target for disruption. It works for vandalism that just wants to get live on an article with some traffic. It's a tool in the box to fight vandalism, we need many tools to slow down vandalism. Otherwise wikipedia will drown. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 21:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::It's only a tool to fight attention-seekers. LTA users can use PC to their advantage, as can subtle vandals and those who just want to see an entropic Wikipedia. Attention-seekers are not the world. —
::::::It's not so bad, German wikipedia has it by default and it's still alive and well. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 21:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The problem is that de.wp (and any other wiki, Foundation-backed or otherwise) has a culture markedly different from en.wp, so whether FraggedRevs works there ultimately has no bearing on whether its bastard child works here. —
::::::::200,000 years Homo sapiens, western culture, it works, we are not so different ;) --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::That's not convincing. —
::::::::::I simply can't believe that people want this tool turned off. Vandalism is growing, we need tools, if PC is used rarely it's ok but never ever turned off. Power is a dirty business. It wants control of the media through propaganda. Attacks any neutral unbiased quality source of information. File exchange sites and wikipedia included. If we make wikipedia defenceless, wikipedia drows, this cuts the ground under themselves. The powefull get more people disrupting wikipedia, the recession gets less people doing voluntary work on wikipedia. If this goes on, some day there won't be constructive edits anymore, and wikipedia will need a wikibreak. Wikipedia improved its credibility and quality and its traffic went up, with more traffic we get more disruption from unconfirmed user and interests groups. Let's get PC on BLP's with less than one edit weekly. Interest groups disrupting wikipedia must hate PC. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 06:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Chris... please take your [[V for Vendetta]] fantasies elsewhere and stop trying to use scare tactics. And interest groups editing Wikipedia would favor PC - [[WP:OWN|makes it easy to block out bad press]]. —
::::::::::::Jeremy ... ;) It's not a fantasy, u'll agree in the future ;) --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 14:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm afraid I never shall because I don't subscribe to the [[Shin Megami Tensei]] style of Mesia vs. Gaia weltanschaunng. —
::::::::::::Actually if any feature promotes ownership of articles it is the watchlisting process. Pending changes works in the opposite way as any reviewer who looks at the queue of pending changes could check a particular edit. So interest groups trying to edit Wikipedia would find things more difficult with pending changes. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::But until then, if a reviewer is subtle enough, he can get away with approving edits that hide things something he likes/supports wants to keep secret, and maybe even *past* that timeframe if unknowledgeable reviewers act as unwitting accomplices. Again, the issue here is less the technical - and more the psychological and educational. —
:::::::::{{od}} I think this whole "nefarious reviewer" business is a second order issue. It may present some problems or may be more subtle and hard to catch than current article ownership, but I doubt it will be a serious problem on par with our current vandalism or BLP problems. However I also feel this BLP business is a bit of a canard. No one is proposing to limit PC to BLP articles, but almost all the justifications given by the supporters relate to BLPs and BLP related hysteria. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 00:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::To me, it's less the "nefarious" reviewer than it is the "clueless" reviewer - a reviewer who has no knowledge of the subject and thus is incapable of telling the difference between subtle vandalism (in the form of willful falsehoods that are plausible-enough to believe) and a legitimate edit. "Nefarious" only comes into play where corporations or ArbCom-sanctioned areas are concerned; "Clueless" is everywhere. —
:::::::::::Either way I still think it is a relatively minor problem in comparison to rewriting wholesale the implicit contract between wikipedia and its editors. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
==Voting cut offs==
The 2/3rds required for which ever side is not unreasonable. However giving one group of editors twice the vote of the other group is going to make many very upset. What I would see as a compromise is 2/3 vote for it we keep it. 2/3 vote against it we turn it off. In the middle we return to discussion until one of the previous two situations arises. We can use 60% of 55% if people want but having a minority overrule a majority is not going to be good for the project. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 18:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:Agreed. [[User:Ronk01|<
::Yes, also agree with this, this discussion is presently about the addition of another protection tool and requiring a super vote is undue, I agree with the comment from Chris above earlier - "2/3 consensus is too much, we should never ask for more than the golden ratio (61.8 %)." [[User:Chris.urs-o]] 9:21 am, Today (UTC+0) - [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 19:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::2/3 is 66.7:33.3 is too much for a controversy, we block a decision, we'll never achieve this degree of consensus, some guys just want to have access to a possibility to disrupt an article; the golden ration is 61.8:38.2, this is a clear majority:minority ratio. It's incredible that this tool in the box gets opposition, vandalism is waste of voluntary work, we pay to be able to edit wikipedia. It's like stealing a donation for the poor, horrible. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 21:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::::The problem is that this is a site-wide change, and thus a 2/3 supermajority is mandated. —
:::::The rule is wrong, 2/3 rule is everywhere where there is the wish to block a change, or make the executive more powerfull. 2/3 is well known, the golden ration is less known. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 21:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::There is no mandated requirement. We are to do what is in the best interests of Wikipedia. I am sure going against a majority is not. I do not know why there is an insistence that 2/3 is required to turn off PC. It does not make any sense and is not particularly ethical. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 21:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::2/3 is the amount that has always been required to achieve consensus on issues affecting the whole project. —
::::::::If you can get 50 percent plus one support for rejection of the tool then I accept that the tool is not accepted. Saying that, are you willing to accept that - If as has been presented here the golden percentage of sixty one percent is attained in a simple yes or no acceptance vote then that that is totally acceptable in any organization - its a simple protection tool not a wheel dropping off issue. Are you scared of asking the community if they support it? Yes or no, the trial is over - over 61 percent support is enough, if one person more than half don't want it then we will never mention it again. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::On an issue like this anything other than equal votes for both side is not going to fly. The tool is currently on and in use. It has not broken anything. Wikipedia still exists. If it is 2/3 to keep it on, it requires 2/3 to turn it off. That is if you insist on 2/3 for any major change. Till this is achieved we can just leave it in limbo.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 01:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 982:
:::The result of the last poll was to turn it off at the end of last year. The point is, that it '''is not''' on, as you say, rather it got turned on only for a ''limited'' period, to allow us to see what it was like. It was made clear that after that period was over, it would be ''turned off'', so it's not "on" so to speak. It just happens to still be in use because there are users (such as yourself) who insist that it doesn't matter ''how'' PC got here, as long as it's here. In the long run, turning it off now will reduce "bad feelings", even if it gets turned back on at a later date. - [[User:Kingpin13|Kingpin]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kingpin13|13]]</sup> ([[User talk:Kingpin13|talk]]) 06:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I can't believe this... Commonsense says if u have quality and credibility u get traffic, if u have traffic u get vandals. Vandalism isn't democratic, it isn't right. Unconfirmed users' edits must be reviewed, no way out. Wikipedia is not a hippie developer's sandbox anymore, a lil wallflower. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 06:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::We aren't a democracy. And unconfirmed users' edits are already reviewed, by the editors that watch the pages they deal with. We don't need to add yet another layer of bureaucracy that, with the exception of the most marginal BLPs, is redundant with SOP. —
::::::We have pages with no watchers and not all bad edits get catched. Never turn off a tool. But ok, let's just use PC for these marginal BLPs that have an edit weekly or monthly... --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 14:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::[[Special:RecentChanges|No page is ever truly w/o watchers.]] —
::::::::That's a load of nonsense. [[Banbridge Academy]] contained plain libel for over a week. Poynton High School consisted of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poynton_High_School&oldid=376516878 this] for over a week. I could point out some BLPs as well. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 21:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::And having PC as an option (as opposed to being uniformly applied) would have solved that how? [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 02:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 994:
I keep seeing people propose the most intrusive measures to try to deal with libel on BLPs. But the way that Wikipedia reads to me, its BLPs are already so whitewashed as to be barely recognizable. Major topics covered from the news media are simply ''verboten'' as often as not. I asked above what to do when reviewing an edit based on an offline or paywalled source, and pretty much, the answer is that if it's not on Google it doesn't exist. I have to ask, as people keep nailing the rose-colored glasses deeper and deeper into Wikipedia's skull, can there ever be enough caution to satisfy you? Is there any point where you would just accept that this is a volunteer made encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that it can contain a few mistakes, not just omissions? Because if people prefer saying nothing to saying something that might be wrong, why did they ever start Wikipedia? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 18:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::Were you around for the crisis that lead to the BLP policy? Libel on articles can lead to Office Action, which means shutting down an article for weeks, eve months while the legal team tries to placate some minor notable. PC can prevent this. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::Libel / legal ramifications from editing Wikipedia are real. Some of use are okay however with this risk and thus we are still here.--[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 19:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,043:
:I feel like listing all the possible uses/configurations for Pending Changes is really useful for helping clarify the views and arguments made here. Should we expand on this and use the RFC to create some kind of map or detailed descriptions of these factors in a way that everyone can scan? Maybe even just an FAQ? <span style="font-family:Georgia;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling at work]]</span> 19:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::Not a bad idea. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::Seems ok for me, we should go forward and learn by doing... :) --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 20:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,053:
::: "While about [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies#Conclusions from study 1|97% of vandalism comes from anonymous users,]] about [[User:Opabinia regalis/Article statistics#Recent mainspace changes survey|76%]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=prev&oldid=115731955 82% of anonymous edits are intended to improve the encyclopedia.] (Prohibiting IP edits would not eliminate 97% of all vandalism, because those inclined to vandalism could easily take the 10 seconds to register.)"
::<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 05:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
:::It's also worth noting that, by and large, they already *do* register to vandalize, if the amount of VOA blocks levied per week is any indication. —
None of which contradicts any statement I made, thank goodness. Note that I did ''not'' single out IPs for being the only source of "vandalism", nor did I call unsourced or poorly sourced edits "vandalism." In fact I specifically stated registered users are fully capable of violating [[WP:BLP]] (the area, as I understand it, where "pending changes" is currently applied). My conslusion stands. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,062:
I propose we conduct a binding straw poll to determine consensus. Each registered user who participates in the poll will be asked to append a number from 51 to 100 followed simply by their signature. At the close of the poll, add the numbers and divide the total by the number of participants. This would achieve a numeric value on what percentage any subsequent consensus would be required to attain. In a simple illustration, if 100 people participate and 60 suggest 51 and 40 suggest 100, the poll would close establishing a 71% level for consensus. I hope I haven't presented what to me seems logically simple, in a confusing manner. But I am interested if others might agree that we need to do these kinds of things. Thanks '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 22:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::That could create an absurdly high level for consensus. 2/3 is as much as we need. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::So your saying if the 60% who wish too keep it all say the amount required is 0% and the 40% who do not wish it say 100% than we use 40% for keeping it or for getting rid of it? Somehow I do not think this will work. We need to have everyone in a major decision like this with an equal voice. Nothing else will fly. Having a small group repeat over and over that they have consensus that they deserve 2 votes for every one of those from people who disagree with them will not work no matter how many times it repeated. Asking for three votes for every one will work even less.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 23:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::::That would be the case, except that because 0 is in no way a majority, I suggest the range be from 51 to 100 making 51% the least possible level which could emerge. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 23:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::As I said, this method could create a level of consensus that is not merited. 61.8% ''or'' 2/3 is all that is needed. [[User:Ronk01|<
::::::As I stated previously we need to have a range where things remain undecided. Thus 60% for we keep it, 60% again we get rid of it. The middle group we return here. It gives equal weight to both side. It fits the [[golden rule]]. It is the only mathematically and ethically correct option. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 23:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Personally I agree that 60% is a fair level for consensus in this situational (I like 2/3's better). I anticipate those who oppose Pending Changes would argue that as too low a bar, preferring 80%, like RfA. This also depends on whether the poll is presented as consensus to turn off, or consensus to leave on. That is why I want to see a level for consensus, itself reached by a consensus average, which would apply to any instrument for consensus used to close this trial, regardless of how the proposal is worded. Right now if I ask a particularly bias person what level of consensus do you think should be attained, to keep PC on, they might say 'nothing less than 80%', assuming that less than 80% means turning it off. That same person however would not say 80% if the poll asked what level of consensus should be required to turn it off, assuming in this case failure to attain consensus meant it would stay on. Even though we don't have the wording for any closing poll, we can answer the outright question of what level should attain consensus. And yes, then we would probably argue for the next half year on how to phrase the poll itself. But we would already know the level for consensus having at that point taken a small, but substantive step forward. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 00:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I'm against PC, and I've argued mainly for 2/3 (66%) because 2/3 has generally been accepted as consensus with regards to items that have a community-wide impact. Anything lower is an insult to those who oppose it (thanks in no small part to the second poll which started the "Dictator Jimbo's Fiat" phase of the trial and left a bad aftertaste in some people's mouths) and anything higher is an insult to those who support it because there is no way anything close to 70% is attainable due to the divisive nature of the issue, let alone 75 or 80. I also note that several supporters voted *against* PC's continuation at the second poll specifically because it went against the original consensus for a two-month trial - a consensus that has thus far not changed. —
It seems silly to me to have a vote to setup the procedure to have another vote. If we really don't have a good mechanism for making this kind of decision, then that should be solved generally and not just for this issue. Moreover, I think the proposed meta-vote is not actually addressing the weaknesses polls have for this kind of issue: I think the problems are [[Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives|irrelevant alternatives]], [[Independence_of_clones_criterion|cloning]], and other related factors. E.g. If the possible proposals under discussion are "make it work one way", "make it worth another way", "turn it off" the last can still win even if a super-majority prefers having it on in some fashion but they end up split due to disagreeing on the details (or supporting a complete deactivation because their preferred option wasn't in the running). Adjusting the threshold for a plurality vote doesn't really solve that problem, in fact any motion away from 50% usually makes these problems worse, and twiddling the threshold mostly just switches around which side gets a veto. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell|talk]]) 00:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,090:
* '''There is no policy.''' There are a few hundred experimental usages which were supposed to be shut off December 31. Outside of one-sentence talk page comments, no one has proposed any policy for when PC should be used. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 08:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep pending changes''' and continue to ''improve'' it as concerns are addressed by programming and practice. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 09:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Remove PC from all articles first; ''then'' come back.''' Until the end of the trial is honored, ''nobody'' should even be considering voting as the will of the community has been utterly disregarded by the supporters of PC. Remove it from all articles, let the trial actually '''end like it was supposed to on August 14th and December 31st''', and let's get some hard data before we go fucking about with something that is just going to end in a lot of pissed-off editors. I cannot assume good faith with '''any''' poll or final debate on PC until the supporters, including Jimbo Wales, stop filibustering everyone and do what they've twice promised us - ''end the trial so that information can be gathered.'' —
**Until the aeroplane is '''perfected''' (say at the level of the Boeing 747) it should be banned from flying (1906 comment) ? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
:::No, but we did not immediately put half the population into 'planes - we did rather a lot of small test-flights. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 15:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,151:
::::::It was tested on less than 0.03% of articles. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 04:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Stop the random polls!!''', before we even attempt another poll/ vote/ attempt for consensus about anything, we need to come up with a list of options and conditions for keep or close. Then we need to assign each option a number, and have people vote strictly using the numbers. If they cannot form their vote from the provided responses, then siply have them add another one. This is as complicated as it needs to be, not another poll every other day! [[User:Sumsum2010|<
*'''I don't''' think anyone is seriously polling here and i'm pretty sure this vote is not being counted. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::This page has been has users to say how they experienced the tool. A community based thingy, yes, and as such you are always going to have some things happen that minorities don't want. Perhaps you should ask for the tool and experience it in use. Its not a toy its an additional protection tool, as I see it and see it reflected here, there is nothing left to actually discuss about the actual tool - in the beginning there were some users who were very vocal indeed about the tool, they worry about the free to edit concept and freedom in general and control and being dictated to, imo the trial has resulted in some of those worries not materializing. I cant tell you any more about it, I support it and want to keep it to help protect our articles and the trial showed that it does do that in some useful ways without making any wheels drop off. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,165:
:I firmly believe the basic up-or-down decision to keep using PC in some form or not is the first order of business. The rest of it is all dependent on that. Unfortunately many users are refusing to discuss that unless other conditions are met first, and of course we have folks who seem almost desperate to turn this into a poll instead of a discussion. This was never going to be an easy conversation to have, but now it is like a monster grown out of control and I'm beginning to think we may need to either start over introduce some sort of well-defined structure here, such as at a user RFC, where users post their "view" but threaded discussion is on the talk page. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 02:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
::I agree that we need to make that decision, in binding form. I am ready to append my support, and agree to accept the outcome up-or-down. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 02:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
::I also agree that this has become to large to manage. I belive that the best thing to do now would be to shut down PC and let everyone have a chance to cool down. There is always going to be some turmoil about this, but it seems to be getting closer to a shouting contest, rather than a discussion. Someone with the power to needs to step in and halt everything until people are ready to reason. Personally, I am agianst PC, but I am completely open to reasoning and discussion. If there were enough of these to change my opinion the other way, I would. [[User:Sumsum2010|<
== Stop debating, turn it on and lets move foreward. ==
Line 1,180:
:Correct. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 03:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:(loud applause!) This really puts editing into perspective, it is a very tough thing and the community is responsible for it. Thank you for the very real and hard to admit aspects of Wikipedia. [[User:Sumsum2010|<
:Support. We should slow down destructive editing. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 03:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:I agree with most of your thoughts above. The single point I would contend is your assertion, "Wikipedia is not a fun place to be unless you like conflict and month long debates". I think Wikipedia is a "fun place to be" in spite of the existence of such unglamorous debate. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 03:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,196:
* I haven't come across a retired editor who said "I left Wikipedia because the vandals were too much" yet. Instead I think we're losing editors (and female editors) mostly to wikipolitics among the antivandals and the admins, the group who usually don't actually write articles anymore but instead focus more on 'legislating'. No one likes drama, and vandals do not cause drama. Unless your definition of 'vandal' extends to people whose opinion on an article is different from yours?
*::''Well, obviously, you have a different experience than I do. The point is, those editors don't come back here to tell why they left. Just tell me, why do we have so much wikipoloitics among the antivandals and admins? Exactly, to deal with vandalism, POV pushing, and the whole shit that makes wikipedia a substandard encyclopedia that it could be. ''-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*:::''...and which PC will exacerbate by shrinking the willing editor pool from "anyone" to "anyone who sucks up to reviewers." In other words, only established editors with a long history or who have the patience of a saint.'' —
* True, there are interest groups pushing points in Wikipedia, but how assured are we that there are no interest groups among reviewers as well? True, vandals cause legal problems for Wikimedia and yes harms reliability, but claiming that they are the cause for the decline of editor numbers is stretching. As a relatively new editor, I know for one that the few instances that almost made me quit were caused by heavy-handed users with special rights who for all intents and purposes assume bad faith as a rule, rather than the exception. Is everyone really that jaded?
*::''Did you even read what I wrote? Vandalism is just ONE part of the story that I see as the problem. The acceptance of vandalism fighting over prevention as a way of life creates a culture in which conflict is integrally institutionalized. [[WP:3RR]] is another rule that desperately needs to be replaced with 1RR. 3RR PROMOTES edit warring, because as long as that you stay within the precise defined bounds of wdit warring that we have legislated, you are fine. Same for a whole bunch of rules ([[WP:AFG]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:NPA]]), as long as you stay within those, you can push your POV as much as you want dragging out debates for MONTHS. What we need is a fundamental change from a conflict-based community model to a cooperation-based community model. Sure, we have [[WP:CON|consensus policy]]. But as long as your conduct is within bounds, you can just go on and on and on and .....''-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*:::''I've seen plenty of blocks for edit-warring in spite of the blocked editor never having technically breached 2RR. And in any case, those who desire Wikipedia's security over editors' freedom so often get neither.'' —
* Edit warring are not caused by vandals usually, they're caused by two good faith editors. Solving the problem of edit wars by making one of them reviewers with 'rights' over the other is not helping the ideals of consensus, at all.
*::''Again, read what I wrote. Vandal fighting is not the only issue that is a problem, but accepting vandal fighting as a basis of this encyclopedia creates a culture that promotes conflict.''-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*:::''I don't think *anyone* is accepting vandal-fighting as the basis of the encyclopedia except for you. Those of us who actually think rationally about vandalism - on both sides of the aisle, mind you - accept that vandalism and vandal-fighting is a way of life on Wikipedia.'' —
*::::You nail it: '''vandalism and vandal-fighting is a way of life on Wikipedia.''' Summed up in one nice sentence why wikipedia never will amount to what it can be. Vandal fighting is the way of life at wikipedia. Thank you very much for confirming my point.-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
*:::::Sorry, lemme rephrase - I was tired and suffering from a terrific migraine when I initially wrote that statement last night. Vandalism and vandal-fighting is a ''part'' of life on Wikipedia. Apologies. —
* From all appearances, it seems like the Pro-PC crowd is already railroading everyone else and advocating its application on every article on Wikipedia. Please correct me if I got the wrong impression. All people are asking for is caution. Because despite everyone's reassurances (by off2irob's count, 93 editors deciding the fate of Wikipedia huh), this has the potential to finally end the ideal of consensus on Wikipedia (at least if some of the pro-PC's wishes here are made reality).
*::''I have no idea about others, but yes, I advocate that we should hard code flagged revisions on all articles immediately. I have no idea why this would lead to the end of consensus. to the contrary, once we start moving away from a conflict based community, we might actually be able to implement some sound policies that will facilitate consensus building and reduce the other crap like edit warring and POV pushing.''-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*:::''You can't see how this can lead to the end of consensus? Take high-school psychology and then reread what PC entails. Yes, you heard me right. You're giving people who have very passionate views the ability to force those articles to their point of view - and no amount of stripping reviewer rights will help, since another one will just come in where the old one left off. Seriously, this isn't rocket science. It's basic human psychology.'' —
* Ownership is exactly the concern here. PC means handing the controls of an article over to a small group of editors who aren't even that assured of true neutrality. Just here alone, there are editors with reviewer rights who blatantly disregard any other opinion other than their own no matter how reasonable. And you wonder why there is an air of distrust going on around the refusal to turn off the trial as an act of good faith. If PC people won't even honor a promise, how exactly does that assure us that they will be completely impartial in determining which revisions are vandalism and which aren't? Are we now at the mercy of the reviewers and administrators finally? It's been the de facto situation for years, now it's going to be official. And forgive me, but I'm not exactly enthusiastic about that thought.
** ''Wrong. Edits get checked anyway. PC only means that vandalism gets checked before going life.'' --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 11:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*::''No, PC means that '''edits''' get checked before going live. Don't delude yourself that it's just vandalism that gets checked by PC. '''All''' edits - good or bad - have to go through the uneducated, biased, and uninterested bozo filter that is a room full of reviewers. And that will end off pissing off good faith IPs who will become disillusioned and leave - leaving naught but the vandals. PC, in other words, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.'' —
*:::Wrong, the active voluntary workers are a small number, so only some articles will have PC sometime. Now we have vandalism, filibusting, edit warring, harassment; constructive editors become disillusioned and leave. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
*::::Stop spouting off those words; they get emptier the more you use them as justification - especially when PC will have no net change on vandalism and worsen the other three. PC is not going to stop us from leaching more users than we gain, and may send that trend steeper downwards. —
**''Ownership is already an issue, and flagged revisions is not going to change that either way. It is obvious to me when you write this that you have already been affected negatively by the conflict-model wikipedia is based on. Vandal-fighting promotes hierarchy, because we need people who can whack vandals of wikipedia. Once we eliminate the need to do that, we can actually restructure the community towards a different model that is based on cooperation which will be more based on content than on conduct.''-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*::''Kim, dance a few rounds with LTA vandals, and you'll realize that PC is only going to exacerbate that situation by giving them another non-automated tool they can use to suck away volunteer time, a precious resource we have little of as it is. Ownership is an issue either way, yes, but so is vandalism, especially from long-term abusers and people prodding to see what exactly will slip past the porous reviewer net. Silvermoon's Law applies here.'' —
*To clarify, I support PC for a select group of articles that ''need'' it, and like others who are seen as 'PC opposition' here, we aren't exactly clamoring for its termination forever. I also support PC if the reviewer rights are made available for everyone to still ensure the possibility of consensus and healthy debates from a wide pool of opinions, and to make it more inline with the autoconfirmed status in semiprotection. I do not support giving reviewer rights only to a group of people favored by certain admins. But that's probably just me.
*::''Well, we have a whole range of admins, so we will have groups of people favored by various groups of admins, ergo, we will cover the whole range.''-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*:::''At present reviewer is not restricted to admin. And speak for yourself, Obsidian; I've made it perfectly clear that (a) I am not going to become a Reviewer - even if made automatic - and (b) I support nothing more than the total removal of PC from en.wp (though at present I would much favour that the pro-PC crowd [[WP:POINT|uphold their promise, thus far twice broken, to remove PC from all articles and let the trial end]]).'' —
*Debates are only pointless if one side is unwilling to compromise or listen to the other side's views, and I'm pretty sure it's the pro-PC crowd here who are adamantly refusing to give way even just a tiny tiny bit. Yes, let's move forward, but please don't just shove everyone else off the road.--'''<span style="font-family:century gothic">[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#000">Obsidi<span style="color:#f50">♠</span>n</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#f50">Soul</span>]]</sup></span>''' 09:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*::''Sure, and do you think that demanding that we first do a, b and c before we can discuss something is going to solve the problem? Yes, I am sick of the vandalism, the edit warring and the POV pushing, and I think everybody who favors a model that promotes this conflict-based model should just pack up their stuff and go elsewhere. Just tell me, what is your solution to the rampant vandalism at wikipedia?''-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*:::''No, Kim, you are the one ignorant of the actual issue here. When the initial trial (June 14 - August 14, 2010) was proposed, consensus was that it would be trialled for two months. Instead of the trial being ended after two months, a [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll|vote]] was held as to whether or not to extend it, and it was extended with just about a 60:40 margin - notably, many PC supporters voted off on it specifically because the vote violated the original consensus. The second part was scheduled to end December 31, 2010, and the trial has still not ended. You, and every PC supporter filibustering to keep it in sans consensus, [[WP:POINT|are the problems here]], not those of us who want to see the two consensuses finally honored.'' —
:::: Do you think PC will stop edit warring and POV pushing? There are disputes about such things all over Wikipedia, most often between autoconfirmed users who would not be affected by PC level 1. Are you suggesting that level 2 PC should be common, and that reviewers should decide who is right and who is wrong in substantive content disputes? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 17:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, did you read what I wrote? I see a far bigger problem with wikipedia than just vandalism and that is that WP utilizes a conflict model as the core. Flagged revisions is just going to deal with the first step in moving away from that conflict-based core. I am strongly opposed to any system giving editors automatically reviewer rights, because that are things that can be gamed far to easy by determined vandals who are out to plant crap about a specific person or so. Not that we can prevent that at all times, but just waiting three days is not going to cut it. Anyway, if we want to get rid of the warrior mentality at wikipedia, we have to get rid off all policies that enable edit warriors and POV pushers (for example: [[WP:3RR]] should be replaced by [[WP:BRD]]) and replace them with more sound content generating policies and ways to resolve content disputes far faster as they are now resolved. But that is a different discussion, and one that most likely nobody want to do. :-( -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 18:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,239:
:::::::Two points: vandalism is a form of censorship/harassment, rollbackers get reviewer rights, so you don't have a second status, really, really. Important is that no vandal gets rollbacker or reviewer rights. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Chris, that statement above is akin to calling all pit bulls vicious animals. All censorship and harassment is a form of vandalism, I'll grant you, but not all vandalism is a form of censorship or harassment. If you're suggesting that it is, then you have no idea of the actual motivating factors behind most vandalism.
::::::::You see, Chris, part of the act of censorship and harassment is ''intent to censor/harass''. Without the explicit intent to do either, it's just acting out. —
Nothing in this lengthy discussion really refutes an alternative position, which would be to stop debating, replace it with semi-protection, and move forward. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,268:
I think with regard to vandals they often enjoy admiring their own handy work. I think Wikipedia should be much more involved with completely removing certain edits by revdel. Simply reverting or even rejecting with PC, leaves a copy in the history which can be accessed and admired. I would like to see the PC tool give a choice to reject changes and simultaneously request a revdel for the particular change. This for the most egregious examples which is what I originally thought we were looking to impede. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 22:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:While discussing this could be more appropriate at another RfC, I wanted to highlight my initial impression that PC was to deal with obvious vandalism, the kind which is so blatantly obvious that it would often be of the class requiring revdel. In a practical sense, it seems PC is rejecting many issues of content dispute which I had thought was to be left to the normal mechanisms, in particular page watchers. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 03:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::On this same note, maybe revdel could be bundled with rollback, to create an "all-in-one" vandalism removal capability? [[User:Sumsum2010|<
:::No, because RevDel is part of the deletion/undeletion package, and I believe there's a reason why that is never going to be piecemealed from the admin bit. —
::::Yes combining RevDel into PC would be a great idea. I guess the question is would it be just available to admins using the tool or everyone.?[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 05:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Doc, I believe the WMF has indicated that there's legal reasons why nonadmins have no access to deletion tools, incl. RevDel, and it involves much the same arguments the PC supporters are bandying about - potential libel. —
::::::Since revdel came out, it seems like these deletions have just exploded, with all sorts of miscellaneous information being cut out. Who knows what it all is. This is not transparent, not an encyclopedia anyone can edit - it is already much too much. There's no need to use this on every trifling nasty comment. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 06:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I do not propose we revdel every trifling form of vandalism which occurs. I do think we should aggressively remove the ones that are so blatantly obvious as to leave no reason for storing even the revision in history. I do not suggest that users outside the admin corp be able to effect a revdel, but since we are supposed to be impeding the most grossly offensive and blatantly obvious forms of vandalism, it seems only proper that rejecting a change that would best serve Wikipedia by revdel, should have an automatic mechanism reporting it to some admin noticeboard for their consideration. Maybe a new notice board specifically for reverted edits where the reverting editor does believe it should be considered. And our focus as reviewers should be in identifying the most egregious forms, leaving the expert review to the page watchers. This program has rapidly morphed into a program where I have seen edits rejected simply for not including an edit summary. My original impression was that PC was not intended to be an expert review, specifically focusing on the blatant, and because these types are often of the class requiring revdel, it just seems efficient to include a mechanism to allow a reviewer to request revdel when they do in fact encounter one that would qualify. I have always believed if we could hamper the vandals ability to admire their own handy work, they would loose whatever misguided incentive they gain by being able to load a previous revision to review their trash or show it off to their friends. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 07:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Just because an edit is useless juvenalia doesn't call for revdel. The cost of frequent revdels is that we don't know ''what'' has been taken out of an article. A tool like that is made to be abused. I doubt that vandals are really showing off their stupid edits from the article history as if it were a badge of honor. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 08:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::So if they create an attack page which is deleted per CSD. You are ok that their contributions related to that page are removed from view, but if on the other hand they include their attack trash within an established article we ought to give them the benefit of visibility? Honestly I disagree with that rational. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 08:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::By and large I doubt most vandals are even aware we have a page history, so why are we even discussing visibility when those vandals are going to assume, when their edits get rollbacked, that their edits were deleted? RevDel should only be saved for cases where deletion is impracticable on an edit, and the edit is not severe enough (intentional outing of RL name or address, severe cases of libel that can impact someone's career) to warrant oversight. —
:::::::::::Does that imply that you disagree with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revdel#Criteria_for_redaction the criteria for redaction] which includes more than the reasons you listed? '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 11:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yes. Removing "purely disruptive material" is no loss but also no gain; but the loss of ''transparency'' is a tangible loss. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm referring to standard deletion when I say "deletion is impracticable", not RevDel. But, by and large I disagree with criterion No. 1. (Note that the parentheticals are for ''Oversight-worthy'' material, not RevDel.) —
:::::::::::::That's fine. I still maintain that when we vandal fighters revert an edit which does meet the criteria for redaction, we need an efficient method of requesting it. kind of like CSD tagging. And I include it in this discussion because the kinds of edits we are supposed to be rejecting under PC are of this type, and not as I've seen, for failure to include an edit summary. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:I think this is a stop-gap solution that only increases the amount of work and won't reduce vandalism substantially. Vandalism should be resolved in a far more substantial way.-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,289:
The problem is not whether we will allow maybe for some articles to use flagged revisions. The problem is what we want wikipedia to be. The problem is what we see as the model by which wikipedia ideally should operate. I think that we should put all effort in getting away from a way of life that is based on vandalism and vandal fighting. Obviously, some will disagree, but I think we cannot resolve the issue of flagged revisions without resolving what community-model we want to have here. Essentially, underlying the flagged revisions debate, we have a paradigm conflict going on about how the community at wikipedia should function. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 15:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:Someday we'll have only sysops, newbies with edits under flagged revision and wikipedians with a <s>back</s>log of constructive edits without blocks. Vandalism, harassment, filibusting is an incredible time sink as it is now. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::Sorry, I ain't paying you a single makka for that statement. Go back to preaching on the streets of Milennium. Seriously, Chris, you're sounding like a broken record with as much as you reiterate the same imbecilic points over and over again and keep arguing, counterintuitively may I add, that PC will fix those ills. If anything, given the userbase of en.wp PC will exacerbate those ills. —
:::Wikipedia:Etiquette Jeremy, I don't want PC turned off Jeremy, it'll be always a tool in the box in the vandalism fight, it can be used on a small number of articles only. "You reiterate the same points over and over again", you too. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::What does "wikipedians with a backlog of constructive edits without blocks" mean. If you are saying PC will be backlogged that has not been a problem so far. PC is not intended to be used on every single article. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Sorry, my mistake. Yeah, PC can't be used everywhere because of the backlog that we'd get. Maybe this is the solution, the priority of recent changes patrol, should be first, edits from non autoconfirmed users, and second, non rollbackers/reviewers. As a rollbacker/reviewer has a constructive edit log, no blocks and he's not a newbie anymore. A log of edits from newbies, as the new article log. Wikipedia gets less good faith edits from newbies the more traffic it gets. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
(Outdent) Sorry to put a damper on this section, but I had initially thought I'd written "a ''part'' of life" in the statement used to open this section. I've since rephrased. Let this be a lesson to you: Don't edit while under the influence of a migraine. —
::::Jeremy, you are wrong. There is no right to do a vandal act, vandalism/anarchy is evil. Wikipedia is not. You bought a computer, you pay an internet connection, you donate to Wikipedia, you revert vandalism. Wikipedia has the right and the duty to defend itself from people destroying it, it has the right to get a better quality, a better credibility, and more traffic. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 19:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::I said it's a ''part'' of life - something which is gonna happen regardless of the feelings of those dealing with it. Speaking as an individual who himself tends towards [[Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)|chaotic good]], which seems to be about in the ballpark of the general community (which I'd argue is chaotic neutral) I find your statement above to be scaremongering and not universally true: Not every editor owns a computer (library), pays for an internet connection ([[phreaking|using unsecured wireless nodes]]), donates to Wikipedia, or reverts vandalism. Wikipedia has the same duty to protect itself as every other website does, no more and no less. To suggest it has more of one just because of its Alexa rank is disingenuous. —
:Jeremy, whether a part or not, I think we should not want vandalism and vandal-fighting to be (part of) life at wikipedia. It infuses the way wikipedia is run, with a large number of policies in place to do just that. Ergo, my point remains. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 19:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::The problem is, it will always be a part of life, Kim. So long as people have celebrities to defend, so long as people want to get people to believe 2+2=chair, so long as extreme LTAs (JarlaxleArtemis, Mmbabies) are still not in prison, we will have to deal with vandalism. —
:::Yes, there will be a few determined individuals. And I have to accept that as a valid argument why we should keep the current vandal-fighting paradigm? If we can cut 95% of the vandalism, wouldn't that be wonderful? I am not ignorant to suggest we get it all, but we would make a MAJOR dent in the vandalismthat we get. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::95% of the vandalism won't be eliminated just like that - it'll just move to registered accounts that are harder to build abuse reports against due to Foundation privacy policy. Jimbo himself has said it's preferable they're on IPs, not named accounts. As it is we have vandal-only accounts registered daily, likely by the tens or hundreds. —
:::::Well, those registered accounts only can add their vandalism when they have reviewer rights..... So, I don't see a problem them trying to do the same thing as an account. Now, we have to full protect our articles to deal with those editors and NOBODY can edit it, with PC, everybody can edit it, and nothing bad shows up. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 03:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::You're assuming vandals will not create autocon-busters. :L1 can be circumvented in the same fashion semis can. —
:::::::I assume they will try. That is why I would object to automatic rights assignment. To add, semi-protection works wonders against a lot of low level vandalism. L1 would work against schoolkids etc-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 03:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
*This whole section is magical thinking. If you think that PC will change the core paradigm of wikipedia (that is, edit and result via change and conflict) but not completely rewrite the social contract of wikipeda (anyone can edit) then I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 23:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,311:
:Jeremy, you see as a priority to avoid censorship on Wikipedia. I see Wikipedia under attack now. Mankind's history had always interest groups destroying good quality, neutral, credible information sources. Dictators publish an evil book (Hitler, Mao, Gaddafi), use the media for propaganda and the school for brain washing. And of course, destroy opposing views: good books, encyclopedias and libraries. Wikipedia is a superencyclopedia, encyclopedias in many languages linked together. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 00:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::I'm invoking [[Godwin's Law]] there.
::I see the avoidance of censorship on Wikipedia as a priority because of the fact that we *are* a "superencyclopedia", as you put it. Thus, if we censor anything out, we in turn contribute to the "interest groups" - in this case, Mesians like you - who would much rather that Wikipedia conform to their revisionist history. —
== Can someone summarize the main objections to PC? ==
Line 1,365:
::Vandalism, harassment, edit warring, filibusting is a form of censorship and article control, and it's happening now. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't exactly see how making article control 'official' is a solution to those you outlined.--'''<span style="font-family:century gothic">[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#000">Obsidi<span style="color:#f50">♠</span>n</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#f50">Soul</span>]]</sup></span>''' 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::[[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]], [[WP:Harassment|harassment]], [[WP:Edit war|combat]], [[WP:IDHT|filibustering]], [[WP:Censorship|censorship]], and [[WP:Ownership of articles|article control]] are indeed happening right now because people are passionate about what they want to defend. PC does not change this in the slightest, and to suggest it will is foolish. —
::::The credibility of Wikipedia increases with sysops, reviewers/rollbackers, recent changes patrol, PC, semi-protection, constructive edits and other good faith edits. Wikipedia will die if it becomes a noticeboard for vandalism. A newbie can expect that a second opinion will check his edit if it's not a vandal act. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::A newbie ''can't'' expect that because, having been an admin, I can tell you that there's a strong tendency to punt complicated problems to someone more suited to do them. And Wikipedia's credibility does not correlate with anything you mentioned above - such is the problem with sapient editors. Everyone has an opinion to give and a POV to push; only the wise ones keep both to themselves.
:::::Seriously, the fact that you're even saying that tells me you know next to nothing of the actual demeanor of en.wp's userbase. I would invite you to read over [[WP:ANI]] - which is generally the rule, not the exception - and you'll realize that PC is not the panacea you're making out to be, and never will be. —
====New users put off when their change isn't immediately visible====
Line 1,382:
::This really has to be compared to '''New users put off because they can't edit semi-protected articles''', <small>(unless they learn how to become autoconfirmed by registering an account and changing something else and/or learn that edit request templates are available to be used on discussion pages)</small>. They would be more put off by not being able to edit at all. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 18:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:Agree there, but how exactly do you explain that while they are editing? Not to mention that IP editors won't be able to view their changes after hitting submit correct? Since they aren't logged in and thus can only see the most recent accepted version.--'''<span style="font-family:century gothic">[[User:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#000">Obsidi<span style="color:#f50">♠</span>n</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Obsidian Soul|<span style="color:#f50">Soul</span>]]</sup></span>''' 18:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::Exactly. With semi-protection, the "view source" button at the top of an article makes it clear the article can't be edited, and clicking that button gives a reason why at the top of the page. Pending changes, on the other hand, is not so forthcoming and more confusing, since the instant gratification part of editing is removed, leaving them to wonder if their edit got through at all and leaving them confused. —
:::As I understand it newly registered (non-autoconfirmed) users ''will'' be able to see their edits. There is also a help message displayed at the top when they click 'edit' ('edit this page' isn't even shown on a semi-protected page - how off-putting is that?). It is no more difficult than semi-protection, but easier because editors can make changes (knowing they are subject to review). -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 19:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::That is correct (with current implementation). Non-logged-in users will not see it - so IPs editing would not see their edit.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 20:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,419:
I'm not so sure this is a big deal. Yes, there is a new permission you can get. But for the most part, it is being given to the same people who have rollback. I applied for Rollback and was given Reviewer and Rollback. They are given together so much that there's even a [[User:95j/Rollback and reviewer|userbox]] listing both together! In as much as there's a 'new class', it's really just the same class of people who are experienced enough to have been given rollback, and it's only a small notch above autoconfirmed. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 22:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:Agree. You have newbies, experienced users <nowiki>[</nowiki>people with a record of constructive edits and no blocks (rollbackers, reviewers etc)<nowiki>]</nowiki> and sysops. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 00:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::The problem is we also revoke rollback from quite a few users due to misuse. —
{{ec}}
::Could you please direct me to the page/s that show the criteria for getting reviewer status? I do not think they exist; I think admins gave our 'reviewer' to whoever they felt like (which may have been fine, for some brief trial). Whereas [[WP:ROLLBACK|rollback]] has some reasonably clear prerequisites, and granting that permission to applicants that are not suitable is subject to our usual procedures of revocation. Are all users who have "rollback" permitted reviewer, and that is the criteria? OK, so in that case, reviewer should be bundled with rollback. Or is it a different skillset? 50 edits? 500 edits? Proof of no edit-warring? Experience in negotiation or fact-checking? Anyone who isn't a blatant vandal who asks for it? Who knows? I don't see any slight indication of any policy. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 03:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I am against bundling Reviewer tools with regular vandal-fighting tools. The two skillsets, despite people's assurances otherwise, require different skill sets and knowledge. Rollback is for blatant vandalism only; PC is superfluous except to deal with subtle vandalism, and that requires a knowledgeable and unbiased user, which we will never have. —
::::I would strongly argue for bundling them, since PC is at its core, an anti-vandalism tool. We could probably modify Huggle to load Special:PC, which would speed up the reviewing process, and eliminate backlogs. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::::PC may be an antivandalism tool, but the types of vandalism it would realistically be able to address would be the vandalism that a leyperson couldn't identify as such anyhow. Faced with such an edit, everyone will ignore it until someone who knows about the topic matter and isn't biased deals with it, and that will take a while because such users are precious as gold on Wikipedia. —
::::::Well, I've been lucky so far - As a reviewer, I've let through a few things that were unsourced, but only because I was able to search online and find a source that confirmed the information. (And in at least one case, I added the citation to the article myself after I accepted the change.) I'm not going to be knowledgeable at everying I am reviewing, but if it is a non-BLP article and I can't find a source, [[WP:RVW]] doesn't give the clearest of direction. Assume good faith and accept? Accept and edit to add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>? I'd like the guideline to be a little clearer on what should be done in that situation. [[User:Psu256|Psu256]] ([[User talk:Psu256|talk]]) 03:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Agree with Psu. [[User:Ronk01|<
:::"Potential reviewers should recognize vandalism, be familiar with basic content policies such as the policy on living people, and have reasonable level of experience editing Wikipedia." ([[WP:RPE]]) and a more detailed set of criteria is listed on [[WP:RVW]]. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 11:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
| |||