Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving font tags for bots. |
||
Line 1:
{{Pending changes discussions}}
{{archive}}
'''This page contains the third and final phase of a three-phase RfC regarding what to do with Pending Changes in the interim period following its trial. It was decided by consensus that it would be removed from all pages by May 20, 2011. For more information, skip to the [[#Closure|closing]].'''
'''The full text from the proposal page is below. See also [[Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 5|its concurrent talk page]].'''
==Proposal==
Line 48:
#'''Support'''. I sympathize with many of those who oppose because they don't see any reason to stop using PC where it is working, but I think PC has more potential than what we've done with it so far, and the continuation of the trial has caused enough friction to jam up discussion on how to make more of PC.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] ([[User talk:Ragesoss|talk]]) 23:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is necessary to deal with negative feelings about being lied to. I must say I have trouble with those myself and feel a strong irrational urge to oppose to everything related to pending changes. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 23:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- While I do support the continued use of Pending Changes in the future, it is long time to stop this weird purgatory-esque state we are in and make a decision about the future of PC. [[User:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover
#'''Support''' First things first. We are taking way too long to get to the real discussion, which should have happened at the end of the two month trial. [[User:Ntsimp|Ntsimp]] ([[User talk:Ntsimp|talk]]) 03:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC) (Moved comment from my accidental 2nd !vote--sorry) I've always broadly opposed Flagged Revisions, but the PC idea interested me because it could allow more IP edits. So I supported the proposed trial. There were those at the time who warned that PC supporters would cynically leave it turned on after the trial, but I assumed good faith. I've been proved wrong. Leaving PC turned on has done tremendous damage to the project's credibility and to our ability to settle controversial questions by consensus. The first step in solving the problem is to shut it down. [[User:Ntsimp|Ntsimp]] ([[User talk:Ntsimp|talk]]) 05:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' The trial ended months ago. While it was good to get a feel on how the feature works and how the community may adapt to it, there has been little community consensus to continue it or to implement the feature. We need more discussion of the matter, but in the meantime the feature should be turned off or drastically limited. At this point continuing it isn't going to lead to any revelations or change many opinions. Let's not make pending changes a ''fait accompli'' -- more discussion is needed and there needs to be a consensus to switch this on for anything more than the trial we agreed to. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<span style="color:blue;">Them</span>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<span style="color:red;">From</span>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<span style="color:black;">Space</span>]]''' 03:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 104:
# '''Support''' Just a trial, so I agree with Rpeh. Should have been removed as soon as trial was over.[[User:Libertarianrule|Libertarianrule]] ([[User talk:Libertarianrule|talk]]) 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - The trial has ended long ago. --[[User:M4gnum0n|M4gnum0n]] ([[User talk:M4gnum0n|talk]]) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' PC is confusing to new editors. '''[[User:EngineerFromVega|<font color="#990011">EngineerFromVega
#'''Support'''. I am surprised that this has not already happened in the months since the non-end of the trial. '''[[User:SuperMarioMan|<font color="#D40000">Super</font>]][[User talk:SuperMarioMan|<font color="#FF2000">Mario</font>]][[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<font color="#FF8C00">Man</font>]]''' 05:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Mulling it over, I actually like the way PC was implemented, and once guidelines are set for what articles should be there, I think it can work with semi-protection. That being said, the trial ended months ago, so until ground rules are set on all fronts and everything's in place, the trial has to be removed. Ask every corporation that's ever existed, when a trial runs out, the service is kaput. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>[[User:Wizardman/Operation Big Bear|<span style="color:#600">Operation Big Bear</span>]]</sub> 12:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 143:
#'''Weak Support''' - Although I like the idea of the pending changes, in it's current form it's not wide reaching enough. Ending it for now and starting out fresh after some discussion would be a good idea [[User:Cls14|Cls14]] ([[User talk:Cls14|talk]]) 09:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' Until improved version is available and a trial remains a trial. --[[User:KrebMarkt|KrebMarkt]] ([[User talk:KrebMarkt|talk]]) 17:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - [[Wikipedia:Pending changes|PC protection]] has shown to be excellent alternative to semiprotection however I have seen many cases where admins place PC on a page thatshould be semi'd or not protected at all abd do think a break from PC is desperately needed ''<font face="times new roman">[[User:MauchoEagle|<span style="background:#91A3B0;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">maucho</span>]][[User talk:MauchoEagle|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">eagle</span>]]</font>
#'''Support''' We should not need a RfC to do this. The trial was scheduled to end at a certain time; it therefore should have been ended at that time, period. [[User:A Stop at Willoughby|A Stop at Willoughby]] ([[User talk:A Stop at Willoughby|talk]]) 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''', but shouldn't need to. I and everyone else who agreed to the trial proposal agreed to a limited-time ''trial''. A trial means "We'll let everyone try it out to see how it works in real-world scenarios, and then we'll shut it off while we figure out if we want to use it permanently". It does ''not'' mean "We'll sneak it in by calling it a 'trial', and then ramrod through leaving it on after the trial the community approved has ended." That's totally unacceptable, and it's past time to shut this thing down. Maybe someday we'll want to turn it back on again. Maybe we won't. That's up to the normal consensus process to decide. But the trial, which was the only thing that did gain consensus, is long over. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 580:
::::Yes I agree the comments look like they might be confused but this doesn't mean that they are, but besides support for PC isn't necessarily an invalid reasoning for opposing the end of the trial. I must admit though that I originally mis-read Chzz's point, nowhere do they suggest that it's only the opposed votes that might be biased by their opinion of PC. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 09:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Wait, wait—this RfC is not about ''ending the trial''. The trial is over, and has been since August 2010, when a) it was scheduled to end, and b) when data stopped being regularly collected. We are currently in an interim period where PC is on but guidelines on its current and future usage are unclear, and this RfC was started in the hopes that PC might be turned off until a new trial or proposal or whatnot can be formed. <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> 20:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::<shrug>Trials aren't over just because they're scheduled to be over, but your second point (about data collection) makes sense. Who knows? It probably is emblematic of the depth of disagreement over PC that consensus doesn't exist even on as seemingly basic a question as whether the trial has ended. But I can't see that it makes much difference either way. Clearly, many editors understood that PC would not continue to be applied after the scheduled trial period without consensus. Whether continued application of PC constitutes an extension of the trial is really sort of a moot point, isn't it? I'll cheerfully agree to disagree.<p>About the possible confusion of some participants in this phase: while some additional boldface in the proposal description might have been nice, the wording is perfectly clear. I confess to holding little sympathy for anyone who weighs in to support or oppose a proposal without making quite sure what the proposal proposes. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 05:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)</p>
::::::I just used the word "trial" when I possibly should have used more precise language. But the fact that PC remains in use on a number of articles is, in my opinion, a good thing. I personally don't think PC should be turned off, whether it was originally scheduled to be or not. I think it is a good thing for wikipedia and a good thing for the articles it is currently protecting. I hear your arguments for removing PC (even if only temporarily) but I disagree that it is necessary to do so. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 08:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::It isn't just necessary. It's ''vital'' to remove PC. A consensus was formed to start it on a certain date and to stop it (as in really stop it - no weasel words about the trial being "ended" while PC is still in effect on multiple pages) after a specified period of time. Continuing it without seeking a new consensus to do so is a violation of trust that has already harmed Wikipedia. [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 01:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 586:
===Response to MC10===
''(section moved from above by'' —<font color="228B22">''Jeremy'' v^_^v</font> <sup><small>Components:[[User talk:Jéské Couriano|V]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|S]] [[User: Jéské Couriano|M]]</small></sup> on 06:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
#:From your comment, it appears as though you advocate keeping it on because you see it as useful now, not because there's some reason to keep it going to trial it, and that you don't see the current implementation as a trial at all, instead being an actual use of PC, having been snuck through the back door without full consensus, and you're perfectly fine with this and think it should continue. Is this correct? --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
#::user Yair rand, your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Yair+rand&namespace=0 nine edits to article space in the last three months] are greatly appreciated but please allow editors to comment, you can discuss your experiences with pending protection, you don't appear to have any experience with pending protection, if you actually have any, on the talkpage. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 00:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 815:
::::Yes, please leave the RfC open for 30 days. [[User:SlimVirgin II|<span style="color:black;">SlimVirgin</span>]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<span style="color:gold;">TALK|</span>]][[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin II|<span style="color:lime;">CONTRIBS</span>]]</sup></small> 03:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::Actually, this RfC has been running for {{Age in years, months and days|2011|02|16|2011|04|11}}<span class="plainlinks"><sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011&oldid=414335088]</sup> but, as we're {{time ago|2010|06|15|2011|04|11}}<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Philippe&page=World+War+I&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1]</sup> into a two month trial,<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Poll]</sup></span>[http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/106702/match=pending+changes]
::::::All three parts, yes. I think they mean just this phase. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 929:
:No, but endorsement by 66% of editors does... [[User:TotientDragooned|TotientDragooned]] ([[User talk:TotientDragooned|talk]]) 14:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:Deleting material from one place and placing an updated version in a section by itself is not "repeating stuff." [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 15:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
::When half those editors - namely those NOT quoted, I could do this too - are only supporting this proposal because they feel they have no choice if they want to see PC eventually be fully implemented? Also, Totient, this is not a vote. This is a consensus discussion. The numbers above mean nothing in the end. I feel bad for [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] for having to make a ruling on this in the coming days, but given how many of the people commenting in the Support and Oppose sections have not commented since then, I don't know if they can be considered as part of the consensus discussion. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 15:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)}}
Line 962:
===Quotations regarding how Pending Changes helps===
The following quotes are comments that prove PCs usefulness to Wikipedia in general and constitute keeping the system in place.
*''I say keep the pending changes on the articles they're on. It appears to be doing no harm, indeed even helping on them. Now we've seen pending changes working, removing them seems like a step backwards.''
*''The suggestion is akin to having automatic starters removed from cars after they were proven to work. Ot [sic] to removing a new medicine from patients in a clinical trial when the medicine was proven effective for their illness. Pending changes has been proven to reduce vandalism and BLP violations. All it is is "removal for the sake of removal" which makes precious little sense at all.''
| |||