Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving font tags for bots. |
m Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (101x) Tag: Fixed lint errors |
||
Line 21:
# '''Support''' - we agreed to a 2-month trial; it has stayed on for eight. A 'straw poll' supported (60%) ''temporary'' continuation with a drop-dead date of December 2010. Why on Earth is this still on, with no consensus? To move forwards - to have any meaningful discussion - we must first clear the air. The use of PC right now makes a mockery of the Wikipedian ethos of consensus. <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> 09:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - As I've said in past arguments, simply to clear the air. The discussions are currently going nowhere because it's impossible to assume good faith when a past assurance continues not to be honored (i.e. begs the question: How can we trust you to honor the results of discussions if you're not honoring the results of a previous one?). From what I can see, it will be reinstated soon enough (assuming no major problems are found with it), with usage guidelines, scope, and implementation more reflective of actual consensus. '''<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>''' 10:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - purely and simply on Chzz's very good point, that a clean slate will help (eg only for BLPs while were already using it elsewhere). [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
#'''Support''' Ending the PC trial will help clear the air and allow future debates to stay on topic, rather than all ending up as discussions about the trial. It will also help future features be trialled (the main reason the trial got in in the first place was due to users supporting with the understanding that it would be removed, and only because it would be removed, saying they wanted to try it out. If we don't keep the promise of turning features off after the trial, this factor will be lost for future trial proposals). In addition, there is no consensus, and no evidence that PC is good. User's claiming we should keep the trial on because PC is "good", are expressing their own opinion, not fact. Stopping the trial may mean people to actually analysis the results properly. - [[User:Kingpin13|Kingpin]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kingpin13|13]]</sup> ([[User talk:Kingpin13|talk]]) 10:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - [[Ace Attorney|Who the hell's been administering this trial, von Karma?]] If consensus had seriously been followed, this would have been done a long while ago. Time to reset to the status quo and assess the trial, then make a final decision after we're better informed. —<
# '''Support''' It is only logical that PC is removed from pages using it. I'm all for PC but let's remove it first since pages using PC are using it because of the trial (which has ended). After we have a clear consensus, policy and guideline on PC usage, then only implement it ''proper''. [[User:Bejinhan|<
# '''Support''' Per UncleDouggie. [[User:Jsayre64|<
#'''Support''' Now if only some clever people could, from a neutral standpoint, analyse the trial data and make some kind of sense of them to enable more informed debate. [[User:Contains Mild Peril|Contains Mild Peril]] ([[User talk:Contains Mild Peril|talk]]) 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' If a new consensus emerges that PC should be used on this project, then pages can be PC-protected under this new consensus. But the consensus that lead to the current protections does not cover any use after the trial has ended and should be respected. Ending this trial does not mean that PC cannot be reinstated in future with a real policy for its use after all (although I personally am against it). Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 44:
#'''Support''' I disagree that this is just removal soley for the sake of making a point. This is making good on the original agreement that the trial would end, by the end of 2010 for the last agreement. ''Anything beyond that wasn't approved, '''it's that simple'''''. In the absense of any community agreement to do anything else this is the default option and the one we must follow. The only way around that is to totally ignore the original agreement, which as Chzz mentioned above totally goes against the whole concept of consensus. --[[User:nn123645|nn123645]] ([[User talk:nn123645|talk]]) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#We can't go on using it ''ad hoc'' indefinitely without a basic consensus for its use. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Let's start afresh, remove it from all articles, and then let's add it to articles as the result of a protection request. Use it in cases where it is genuinely more appropriate to have PC rather than SP. I started as a rabid supported of PC but now I see its only real use as a protection level for BLP's - all of them. PC does little to stop vandalism. [[User:Pol430|<
#'''Support''', it's time this trial were over, and we finally are able to use better reasoning in the discussions. [[User:Sumsum2010|<
#'''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)
Line 56:
# '''Strong Support''' {{anchor|Guy Macon}}Harm has already been done by promising to conduct a trial for a set period of time and then breaking that promise. I now have to treat any proposal for a limited-time-trial as a proposal for an indefinite trial. Stopping the trial now limits further harm. [[User:Guymacon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guymacon|talk]]) 04:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#:Discussion moved to [[#Response to Guy Macon|Response to Guy Macon]] per instructions. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 06:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Just seriously take it away. This is causing way more discussion than does any BLPs; which we'll deal with promptly later. We need to adhere ''first and foremost'' to the promise given in the previous PC RFC. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<
# '''Support''' Conclusions from the last round were PC is confusing, and I read that PC can create a backlog and stopping the trial should bring these issues to light. Are we keeping the trial because we can't stop because of a backlog? Clearly more stats are needed on which to base decisions. Let's properly stop the trial (as planned), and start a new trial asap. [[User:Jane023|Jane]] ([[User talk:Jane023|talk]]) 09:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' End the trial so a more clear and direct discussion can begin.--[[User:NortyNort|NortyNort]] <small>[[User talk:NortyNort|(Holla)]]</small> 09:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 68:
#'''Support''' - there was never (as far as I can see) any kind of consensus for the trial going on for more than two months, so the fact that it has done so is unsupported - and, most of all, the air needs to be cleared and the slate cleaned (and possibly disinfected, too!) before anything more can be done in the way of movng on. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive; font-size:16pt">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;font-size:14pt;">talk</span>]]) 13:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' While the analysis of the discussions referenced at the top of the page shows high votes for 'it could be useful on BLPs' it also shows a large number of people think 'it's confusing'. We need to stop using it to sort out the 'it's confusing' problem. [[User:Edgepedia|Edgepedia]] ([[User talk:Edgepedia|talk]]) 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' As I have argued for some time, a minority of outspoken editors have steamrolled this idea through an unconvincing trial period and into this state of indefinite continuation regardless of consensus. Hopefully this <s>poll</s> discussion will set that straight [[User:Jebus989|'''<
#'''Support''' the pending change is confusing and removing the pending change from articles will remove the defunct feature. --[[User:Tyw7#p|<i style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:green;">Tyw7</i>]] ([[User:Tyw7/t|☎ Contact me!]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tyw7|Contributions]]) ''Changing the world one [[WP:edit|edit]] at a time!'' 17:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#Support the ending of the trial process. Note that this is ''not'' support for the abolition of PC now-and-evermore, but only support for the discontinuation of this particular trial implementation. My impression from my dealings with it has been that the trial version is too slow and unstable to handle the high-traffic articles for which it was intended—and that extending it to all BLPs, as some below seem to be proposing, would bring the system grinding to a halt—but this is anecdotal. Someone needs to analyse where this worked and where it didn't, and the current "neither active nor inactive" state of PC is just causing confusion. – [[User:Iridescent|<span style="color:#660066;">iridescent</span>]] 17:46, 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|<
#'''Support'''. I am surprised that this has not already happened in the months since the non-end of the trial. '''[[User:SuperMarioMan|<
#'''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)
#'''Support''' Ending the trial by decapitating the beast will have two effects. First, it'll back the supporters into a corner where the rest of us will finally have the leverage to compel them to make real, final, and clear decisions on scope, implementation, purpose, and legal ramifications, and to write a half decent document explaining those decisions to the community. Second, it will force the PC supporters to come back to the community with the above document and the trial data in hand, put all their cards on the table, and make their best and final case. This will galvanize both sides, lead to a more reasonable and hopefully more efficinent debate, and finally put this mess to bed one way or the other. I think it's time for these things to happen. [[User:Sven Manguard|<span style="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><span style="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</span></small>]] 15:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 113:
#'''Support''' - with no predjudice toward further, well-defined trials and ideally agreed upon analytical metrics <small>--unsigned comment by [[user:Ost316|Ost316]]</small>
#'''Support''' – I was entrusted with reviewer rights in December 2010, and I'm convinced that Pending Changes will do Wikipedia some good. If there isn't anything else to test from the current version, then we should move on to the next step. If Pending Changes is going to continue, it should be official and supported by the community. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 21:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - it definitely HAS reduced vandalism and other un-wanted editing to high-target pages, so it should stay. Not to say that there should be a little bit more explanation to new users about it in the policy, but that can be rolled-out after full integration. [[User:A p3rson|<span style="border:2px solid lime;color:white;padding:1px;background:black;"> A p<
#'''Support''' – If it will more quickly get us to the point where we can turn it on officially, then let's turn it off for now. —[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 05:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – Chzz makes a compelling case for ending the trial. I for one find myself much of the time opposing PC merely because consensus is being overriden without paying much attention to the actual issues. A calmer atmosphere for discussion is needed. [[User:Spinningspark|'''<span style="background:#FFF090;color:#00C000">Sp<span style="background:#FFF0A0;color:#80C000">in<span style="color:#C08000">ni</span></span><span style="color:#C00000">ng</span></span><span style="color:#2820F0">Spark</span>''']] 08:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - In the spirit of fairness, if nothing else. Forcing the trial to continue indefinitely will probably do great harm to the social fabric of the project. As a supporter of the implementation of pending changes in some form, I am not optimistic that once removed we will ever see it again on this project. However, it is only fair that the trial is ended so the playing field can be levelled and a serious debate can be held on the future for flagged revisions. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 15:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per UncleDouggie and Chzz. '''[[User:Spencer|<span style="color:#082567">Spencer</span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">T♦</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">C</span>]]</sup> 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' so that discussion can advance. Also, this was supposed to a be a short trial. '''[[User talk:Aaron Schulz|<
#'''Support''' - should have been done a long time ago [[User:Meshach|meshach]] ([[User talk:Meshach|talk]]) 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Per Chzz. [[User:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#000070; font-family: Times New Roman">''Alpha Quadrant''</span>]] [[User talk:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#A00000; font-family: Times New Roman"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 01:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 138:
#'''Support.''' Start over without baggage. [[User:Tarlneustaedter|Tarl.Neustaedter]] ([[User talk:Tarlneustaedter|talk]]) 07:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support.'''Can prevent vandalism and unwanted unreliable articles. --[[User:PREVRAVANTH]] Prev Ravanth 10:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#:This is for supporting ending the trial, not the whole question of PC. —<
#'''Support.''' IMHO "pending changes" is a bad idea, (complication downsides far outweigh the small benefits) keeping the trial going is a step in the wrong direction, ending it a step in the right direction. <span style="color:#0000cc;">''North8000''</span> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 10:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per clear agreement to do so when the trial was started. [[User:TotientDragooned|TotientDragooned]] ([[User talk:TotientDragooned|talk]]) 20:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''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 ''<
#'''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 149:
#'''Support''' - regardless of the good or harm of the feature, the trial has continued far longer than initially stated. thinking even longer-term than just this one feature, it is likely that when other possibly useful features are proposed in the future that editors that feel burned by this episode will simply reject it out of hand. just as a comment on PC itself, i have had no experience other than an occasional page visit that contained the PC notice, and it seemed a good idea to me as long as it was a very short-term tag. i have no opinion either way as to the final outcome, but i feel that it's obvious that the good-faith acceptance of this trial by those who now question or decided against the feature has done far more damage than any good that could come from continuing it prior to further discussion. (sorry forgot to sign [[User:Shelleybutterfly|Shelleybutterfly]] ([[User talk:Shelleybutterfly|talk]]) 16:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC))
#:'''note''' - the user above has six edits - two of them to this page. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
#::And? This is a ''community-wide proposal''. How can you single out a new editor ''when you have an anon voting oppose on the same proposal''? You have a fucked-up double-standard, O2RR. —<
#'''Support'''. A trial is what was promised. Neglecting so prominent a promise by just keeping it going pretty severely damages the basis of trust we need to be able to work cooperatively, in my opinion. It'd be best at this point to end the trial, give the community the chance to draw conclusions from it, and discuss it calmly without all the drama that the neglected promise engenders. – <
#'''Support'''. While I think pending changes is pretty inevitable, I understand why the methods used to implement it have made many people feel disenfranchised. With a change this fundamental it seems important not to push it through as a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Fait_accompli|fait accompli]] and by breaking an agreement, but rather through good faith discussion that doesn't dismiss other people's concerns because they disagree with you about the results that would stem from not using pending changes for a little while. Also, can we please put together a set of guidelines for them before use? [[User:UsernameRedacted|UsernameRedacted]] ([[User talk:UsernameRedacted|talk]]) 13:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
====Oppose proposal====
::<s>'''Oppose'''</s> move to support. 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. (NB, this isn't a ''strong'' objection - I just don't see the point in removing them) [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
#'''Oppose''' The suggestion is akin to having automatic starters removed from cars after they were proven to work. Ot 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. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 10:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Pending protection is working fine on less than one thousand articles and there is no worthwhile reason to remove the tool from them. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 11:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 162:
#:<s>'''Oppose'''</s>, it is a useful tool, it should remain on the articles it is currently protecting (unless consensus on those pages decide that the protection isn't needed or another form of protection would be better, but that's for the article editors to decide). If consensus decides that PC will be mothballed then it can be removed then. '''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]] ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])''''' 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This process bullying is exactly why WP is such a mess. Nothing can be done without process fetishism. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#:If trying to enforce a consensus is "process bullying" or "process wonkery", I wonder what the hell edit wars and wikilawyering are! —<
#::The differences is between bureaucrats who are here for the sake of the rules and pragmatics who are here for the sake of the content. Every self regulated system eventually breaks down under the weight of the bureaucracy, and it is pobvious that wikipedia is going that way under the guise of "process needs to be followed". We have a functional tool about which most editors agree it helps at least in some areas, but it is torpedoed by the process-oriented bureaucrats because of process fetishism. I think it is disgusting. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I am not aware of any real problems, and I believe the benefits outweigh any that might exist. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 20:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 170:
#:'''Oppose''' as ever. Are you guys still talking about this? Just implement it Wikiwide and move on. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 09:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - I like the pending changes. It provides us with a great alternative to protecting some pages, and I quite honestly don't understand why some people want to remove that. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 22:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Pending Changes undoubtedly reduces the vandalism load, allowing vandal fighters to make other contributions. We need to focus on improving Wikipedia's quality. <span style="white-space:nowrap">[[User:Guoguo12|<
#'''Oppose''' - no reason whatsoever not to allow admins to use it. On lightly edited articles, it's a useful tool to ensure that vandalism doesn't get published until reviewed. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 23:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Oppose'''</s> (Moved to observe) I wanted to support this notion as a comprise. Unfortunately, I see the context more as an indictment, and any compromise I bring in good faith would constitute surrender. I have already seen the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011&diff=next&oldid=420535916 calls for finding fault]. I am sure at some level "I dropped the ball". And I know when a proposal says "The Pending Changes trial ended many months ago" followed by "it is only to end the trial". It is a position I can not support. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 23:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 178:
#::*Sort of, but not really. For example, right now, if someone edits a page under PC (e.g., [[Gout]]), and that page is on my watchlist, then when I go to my watchlist, I get a note about it needing review. It's automatic, and it's real. That's simply not going to happen on the couple of test pages. These people will see zero real articles and zero real editing and end up with zero real experience about how it ''really'' works. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Very useful tool, see no reason to remove it. Don't see how this would move forward a ''rational'' debate about its broader usage. --[[User:Elekhh|Elekhh]] ([[User talk:Elekhh|talk]]) 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This proposal appears to advocate harming the encyclopedia for the sake of process wonkery. It is perfectly possible and reasonable to keep pending changes in use while discussing its use. [[User:Captain panda|<
#'''Oppose''' Pending changes is useful that it prevents vandalism from building up, without having to use semi-protection, which punishes IP users for the actions of a few. It is also useful for articles that not many people have on their watchlist. Finally, I believe that every article should have pending changes. This way, Wikipedians can focus on content addition and copyediting, rather than having their edit counts boosted by reverting vandalism, warning vandals, placing vandals on the [[WP:AIV|AIV]], and requesting page protection. <big><
#'''Oppose''' {{anchor|Elipongo}}It's working and it's working well. I don't recall a consensus that it would be turned off after the trial period, just that there would be more discussion. Just because that discussion is belated still isn't a reason to shut it off. —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] <small>([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]])</small> 03:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#:Discussion moved to [[#Response to Elipongo|Response to Elipongo]] per instructions. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 07:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 191:
#'''Oppose''' It's working. Bobrayner brings up a good point also. [[User:Mkdw|<span style="font-size: 13px arial; color: #3366FF;">Mkdw</span>]][[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''talk''</sup>]] 07:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#[[File:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] '''Oppose''' Pending changes are better than any other way for protecting articles here. Wikipedia is supposed to be free encyclopedia which all people who come in good faith should be able to edit, not only for few elected sysops or confirmed people, protecting articles with regular protections (edit=autoconfirmed or sysop) is evil and removing opportunity for regular people to edit this encyclopedia would not make it better. [[User:Petrb|Petrb]] ([[User talk:Petrb|talk]]) 08:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Oppose''' Keeping the PC trial going will expose more people to PC, and give more chances to identify bugs/future enhancements. --[[User:JaGa|<b><
#:Although I still maintain there's nothing wrong with allowing the trial to continue, other editors are using this issue to hold up the process. In the interest of moving forward, I withdraw my oppose. --[[User:JaGa|<b><
#'''Oppose''' - it's working perfectly well as it is right now and is serving to protect a number of significant BLPs. I'm not willing to accept the 'collateral damage' involved in removing it; there's too much already as it is - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D; font-family:comic sans ms;">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A;">l<span style="color:#FFB550;">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 11:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Why semi-protect 1000 editable pages? You must really hate new editors. If some of the articles don't need protection take them to RFPP. Otherwise get over it (the 'difficult to discuss' thing) and think about moving swiftly forwards, not backwards. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 12:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 200:
#'''Oppose''' I don't see a clear practical reason here for why we need to remove it. I don't see this as an "either-or" situation. I see great potential for PC as an option for some situations, while still using semi-protect for others. E.g. perhaps use PC for current-events and lower-traffic pages. [[User:Nealmcb|★NealMcB★]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I really do not understand why we have to turn pending changes off in order to determine how to use pending changes. If we were deciding a new policy on acceptable usernames, we wouldn't insist on stopping anyone from registering. If we were rewriting the BLP policies, we wouldn't just systematically delete all BLP articles so that we have a "clean slate" to work from. This whole discussion is a way of avoiding the actual substantive discussion. Indeed, if we have pending changes turned on, the discussion of the policy can be informed by the fact that we can compare like-for-like pages that are under PC protection with those that are unprotected, semi-protected and fully protected. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 21:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. If the trial has not ended, it simply means ''"It is working !"'' [[User:in fact|<
#:What sort of logic is that? —<
#'''Oppose''' I can only use common sense to guide me. I haven't read enough about this to have more information. But my gut says there is no reason to stop a good thing that works for no reason. My gut also says if there was a good reason, it would be easily seen. I haven't seen it. [[User:Town,WP|Town,WP]] ([[User talk:Town,WP|talk]]) 23:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
#:People have discredited my opposition on my talk page. I don't know what else to say. I like pending changes. I want it to continue. and this is my opinion. If that's not good enough, erase my comments. [[User:Town,WP|Town,WP]] ([[User talk:Town,WP|talk]]) 22:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Why remove it. I see no sufficient reason.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 11:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I don't see any reason to remove it, regardless of when the trial ended. It's only benefiting the articles it is currently activated on. [[User:Tyrol5|<
#'''oppose''' per Alison and Doc James --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color:green;">My Talk</span>]] 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' – No, just no. PC is working well on articles that do not merit the need for semi-protection, such as low-traffic BLPs (high-traffic ones should be semi-protected). [[Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it|If it ain't broke, don't fix it.]] <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—[[User:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">mc10</span>]] ([[User talk:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">t</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/MC10|<span style="color:#000000">c</span>]])</span> 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
#:Moved to [[#Response to MC10]] below. —<
#'''Strong Oppose''' - BLP articles that currently use it should be able to keep testing it. Others, perhaps it can be removed, but this tool helps curb BLP vandalism which could otherwise be libelous. Let's not reopen ourselves to that problem at least on those articles. However, I recognize there is currently a 2-1 consensus as of my vote in support of the above proposal. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#:Addendum to above opinion: I have yet to see a single valid reason why this ought to be removed other than "the trial is ended". [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 19:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 216:
#:When a trial is over, things should revert to the way they were before the trial started, whatever protection that may have been for each article. If you want something else, you're free to propose it here. You can also directly request any protection level for a given article using the normal method. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 06:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I'd prefer to see us implement Flagged revisions on all articles as is working on DE wiki. But Pending changes on 950 articles is better than nothing, and if we remove it from those 950 I've no confidence that it will restart until the next major incident. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers</span>'' 21:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Clearly a good alternative to semi-protection and should be allowed to be applied on an case-by-case basis if there is consensus. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|<
#'''Oppose''' - I think keeping them on the articles they are on is fine. I don't see any harm being done by leaving them where they are. Maybe in the future, we can come up with a new system to replace them in that case it can be removed. [[User:Tofutwitch11|<span style='font-family: "Arial Black"; color:Teal'><big>T</big><small>ofutwitch11</small></span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Tofutwitch11|<
#'''Strong Oppose''' - Pending Changes protection is exactly what Wikipedia needs. The less vandalism that can be visible to the public; the better! [[User:Barts1a|Barts1a]] | [[User_Talk:Barts1a|Talk to me]] | [[User:Barts1a/complaints and constructive criticism|Yell at me]] 02:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - On the articles I watch that have it, it seems to be working just fine. On vandal patrol earlier today it prevented the entire contents of [[Harvard University]] from being replaced with this crap.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvard_University&diff=next&oldid=421590817] One more hurdle for vandals to overcome, and good edits can easily be approved and then implemented. [[User:Doc9871|<span style="color:#000000; font-size:small;">'''Doc'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Doc9871|<span style="color:#999999;">'''talk'''</span>]] 05:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 239:
#{{Not done|Ridiculously Strong Oppose}}: Pending changes works. It is a good alternative to semiprotection, and gives IP editors the power to edit the article without exactly editing it. --[[User:43?9enter|43?9enter]] <sup>[[User talk:43?9enter|☭msg]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/43?9enter|☭contribs]]</sub> 02:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' It works. It's good. This [[fetish]] of exalting process over substance is getting waaaaaay out of hand. And this from a guy who generally supports fetishes. For those who feel [[hoodwink]]ed by the way the trial wound up getting extended please [[WP:AGF]]. And I'll repeat from an earlier discussion the wisdom of the [[Seismology|seismologists]]: "SHIFT HAPPENS" [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 03:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose:''' It's a better way to keep away vandalism and other unsatisfactory edits. [[User:Bill william compton|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
#'''Oppose''' - As stated above previously, it is useful when pages are vandalised and is a system that has been shown to work. If it isn't broken, why fix it? [[User:Gb105|Gb105]] ([[User talk:Gb105|talk]]) 16:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
#:[[#Response to GB105|Response here]]
#'''Oppose''' It is a good alternative to semiprotection, and gives IP editors the power to edit with going live with it [[User:Bentogoa|Bentogoa]] ([[User talk:Bentogoa|talk]]) 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' -- I don't see why it has to be removed in order for a decision to be made; that seems like red tape for the sake of red tape. — [[User:Anndelion|<
#'''Oppose''' I was recently granted reviewer rights and I expect to use them. Keep PC!--<
#'''Oppose''' useful tool even in short term. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 16:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This PC tool has been very useful, and I don't see a problem with keeping it. [[User:Creation7689|Creation7689]] ([[User talk:Creation7689|talk]]) 15:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' While not a perfect solution it is useful and I can see with some minor improvement being as handy as twinkle. [[User:Golgofrinchian|<b><
#'''Oppose''' It's a good start - scrapping it removes the testing and pressure for improvements, quite the opposite of the point. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 12:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 261:
::''But we're only going to remove the extension entirely ... until the community can show a clear consensus that it does not want to use the feature in the long run.''
::The "super clear" clarification actually leaves me more confused. By ''only'', did you really mean ''not''? By ''until'', did you really when ''if and when''? — [[User:Alarob|ℜob C.]] ''alias'' [[User_talk:Alarob|'''ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ''']] 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
:::No, Alarob, the extension will remain; the proposal is merely to remove PC from all articles with it until a final consensus can be gathered. —<
::''Question'': what about other Wikimedia-run wikis that are using PC? It is being used on English Wikinews and Wikibooks, and also on other language versions of Wikipedia. If English Wikipedia reject PC, does that mean the WMF are going to abandon all development and maintenance of PC and support of other projects if they want to use PC?
:::Don't be so naïve. Any decision on PC in en.wp will affect en.wp only. en.wn and en.wb willn't be affected. —<
::::I'm not being naïve. I'm asking a question: Steven is talking about getting rid of "the infrastructure" including the test suite. The question I'm asking is if English Wikipedia's possible rejection of PC will affect other projects? The Foundation haven't expressed themselves very clearly over the issue of PC, so I'm seeking clarification. <small>I also think calling me naïve for asking an honest question directed towards the Foundation shows an [[WP:AGF|AGF]] deficit.</small> —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 23:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::I think it's clear to everyone here that the WMF aren't going to abandon PC just because en.wp doesn't use it, hence why I called you naïve. It would be far too disruptive to the projects that use PC or FR to dismantle it entirely. —<
=== No big deal ===
Line 272:
This <s>poll</s>discussion really should be no big deal at all; a few hundred articles - a tiny test - brought to an end, so we can discuss things without them imposed on us. <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> 10:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC) <small>gah; even '''I'' am mistaking it for a poll; aargh <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> 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
:I'm on the other side of the poll, just about, but I was under the impression that this poll would help determine consensus on the articles currently under PC. I think they're no big deal to be left on, and if the community agrees with me here - we should be able to move on and leave this point alone. If it agrees that they should be removed, we should be able to remove them, move on and leave this point alone. I'll be very glad when we can leave this point alone! [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
::The reason that it ''is'' a big deal if the trial continues is...it makes it extremely difficult to discuss. What's the point in our discussing e.g. "can it be used only on BLPs" when - right now - it is used on [[gout]]? We need a blank slate to work with. A large portion of the community is disillusioned with the entire process - because consensus has been disregarded. I'm not interested in recriminations, I just want us to 'clear the air'. <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> 10:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:::While in theory everyone could just forget that these articles exist and move on, in reality people don't work that way. As long as they exist with PC protection, they keep coming up in discussions and we get nowhere. It's terribly frustrating. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 10:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I hadn't spotted that it might actually preclude discussion on where to use it. That's a very good point, and I've moved to support. UncleDouggie, my thoughts were that you could always refer people to this consensus - which I'm hoping would be enough to move on either way. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><
::::It ''shouldn't'' be hindering forward progress but apparently there are some who just can't discuss things hypothetically when they feel they've been betrayed. When this is all over it may be worth re-examining whose responsibility it actually was to remove it when the trial was over, that is a point that is still unclear to me. Was the Foundation supposed to do it automatically, or was someone from here supposed to tell them what we wanted done and that just never happened? I don't know but it as so many have mentioned rebuilding trust and feeling betrayed I think it is important that we establish who really "dropped the ball" in this affair. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 302:
:::::Neat argument - that means that nothing which ever attracts opposition should ever be tried because the people opposing the change will use up enough time that they can say ''the proposal itself has harmed Wikipedia.'' I had not thought of anyone proposing that logical argument! [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Two words: side effects. Drug trials sometimes show efficacy with the targeted condition but produce unintended new symptoms that are deemed worrisome enough to delay or even prevent the drug's approval. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 16:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Ok... so are we talking about the pharmaceutical industry or Wikipedia? You didn't specify any new symptoms or "side effects" that PC has caused. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<span style="color:#009900;">have a cup</span>]] // [[WP:WWH|<
::::::::<small>How about, "Warning: PC may cause drowsiness, nausea and headaches"? <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> 02:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::<small>I've been on WP so long today that my eye can't stop twitching every two minutes. I blame PC. <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> 02:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
Line 362:
:What we need now is either a consensus, or for the WMF to make an executive decision and have the community stick with it. Frankly, I don't care if the WMF says "PC on every page" now; I just want this waste of time ''over with''. <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> 02:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::The WMF has made it clear they will respect the communities decision on this issue. If my design for the next phase is allowed to proceed it should answer the yes/no question and allow us to publish a rough guideline to how it is to be used that can be refined into a finished policy as we work out the kinks. We can't expect to anticipate every possible issue beforehand, and as we all know no policy is ever perfect or truly "finished" but we should be able to cough up something usable at the end of this thing. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 04:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but I don't see how allowing the trial to continue prevents consensus to be formed about PC itself. They seem like entirely separate things. Could someone point to an example of how the trial has blocked debate about the future of PC? --[[User:JaGa|<b><
:::::They are entirely separate things. It is an obstacle that exists only in the minds of some users. Those users have succeeded in stalling discussion of the future while we discuss the present. The purpose of this RFC was supposed to be about the future but it has unfortunately been derailed despite my efforts to keep it on track. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::::A few recent examples are [[Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011/Archive_3#Phase_three_draft]], [[Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011#Re_Question_1]], [[Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011#Question_1]]. There have been dozens of similar problems that have consumed many man-months of effort in the past and resulted in the current limbo situation. Look at how hard it is just to discuss this simple proposal to end a two month trial in which there are only two possible outcomes. Image if there were four options instead of two, with complex interactions between them. What if we decide it's best to conduct a 2 day trial on some articles as a quick test of something? Oh right, that's not possible because we threw away all credibility by not stopping the last trial. The bottom line is that it's impossible to ask for community support for a proposal, and especially for a major change in policy, when you have demonstrated that you don't have respect for the processes used by the community. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 04:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 368:
:::::::The indentation of my comment made it clear that I was replying to JaGa, not to you. The diffs were examples of how hard it has been to make progress with the trial running, which was the question asked, and isn't your fault. My comment about not respecting the processes used by the community referred to the original question of "how allowing the trial to continue prevents consensus to be formed about PC itself." —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 21:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Replying to JaGa, in parallel with UncleDouggie. UncleDouggie sums it up pretty well. So far as I'm concerned, the refusal to stop the trial at the agreed upon date was an act of dishonesty, and means that I no longer trust assurances from people that have argued that continuing the trial was harmless. The only way I will ever approve another trial of a feature like this is if the software to automatically remove it at the end of the trial is included from the beginning. I won't even discuss the feature until the trial is stopped. How can I proceed in any kind of discussion with people that have already lied to me about the topic at hand? What's the point in reaching an agreement with people that don't honor their agreements?—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 22:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Honestly, I think allowing the trial to continue does no harm at all and is nothing to be taken personally. But, other editors feel very strongly that this trial should end, and that's causing a problem. Although I'm not convinced the trial does any harm to assessing PC, I'll withdraw my oppose to appease those who are delaying further action. --[[User:JaGa|<b><
::::::::I'm still not clear on whose responsibility it was to have it removed when the trial was over. The Foundation wouldn't have done so unless we told them to. Did we? Or did we all just assume somebody else was handling it? (I know I did) [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 375:
I am a very strong opponent of Pending Changes on a broad scale as it runs counter to what Wikipedia is about — being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I've been an opponent at every step of the way, but I tell ya, the TOOL of Pending Changes is a good one and it should not be abandoned for an extremely limited number of problematic articles. I was recently involved with a BLP that was the subject of protracted defamatory vandalism that was fast approaching a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not going to pretend to know how meritorious the potential suit was or its probable outcome, but I can assure you that a lawsuit WAS close. The biography was more or less fixed and Pending Changes installed as a tool to help protect a recurrence of the problem. PERFECT use of the tool... I loathe the idea that all, most, or many articles make use of Pending Changes, but you know what — if there are 1,000 problematic articles that need the protection to deflect potential lawsuits and the drain upon the foundation's resources that these would entail, win or lose, I'm TOTALLY fine with the honchos giving the middle finger to the community and keeping the tool in place until a final reckoning is made. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 04:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:The problem with that is in your paragraph: ''the honchos''. So far the WMF has not gotten involved, so absent their butting in, which is unlikely unless there's another Sigenthaler Incident, those arguing to keep PC on are arguing in a position that runs counter to ''two'' consensi. Jimbo has indicated he supports PC, but has also indicated he will submit to whatever consensus is made, so again there's been no official involvement.
:(Having been one until I surrendered the rights due to them including [[WP:Reviewers|a Robert King punching dummy]], I can tell you administrators have no practical political power on WP. This is turning more and more into a civil war.) —<
{{ec}}
::This is THE PROBLEM: we are not an encyclopedia that ANYONE CAN EDIT. Many aren't even able to. We aren't a blog that ANYONE CAN EDIT. We are an ENCYCLOPEDIA that has qualities, and these qualities get traffic, and this traffic attracts vandalism. Voluntary work has to work hard to write a quality paragraph. Instead of pushing and fillibusting, we should defend and improve the qualities of Wikipedia, defend and improve the tools we got to defend a Wikipedia with qualities. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 07:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 382:
::Yea, what we need is input from the community on when it is appropriate, and not appropriate, to use pc, not a hard limit on the number of articles. That would be no help at all. Very, very few users have indicated that they believe it should be applied on every article or even most articles so I wouldn't worry too much about that. The way things are leaning so far it looks like the community favors using it sparingly. We just need to define the criteria for using it as we have for the other forms of protection so that admins have some guidance on how it is to be applied. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 04:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, I did say I could think of an alternative. It has to do with raising the bar for autoconfirmed status. Precious few BLP-vandals would bother to wait several weeks and make ''x'' number (50? 100?) genuinely constructive edits, I think, before maliciously zeroing in on their target. A few really dedicated evildoers probably would jump through such hoops, but there's nothing to stop anyone that patient from getting reviewer status, either. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 05:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Precious few VOAs are autocon-busters as is. Usually, it's an [[WP:LOBU|LTA]] or accomplice of same, so upping the edit count hurts us more than it harms them, since they will quickly adapt. —<
:The articles currently under PC aren't the most problematic on Wikipedia by any means. They were just randomly selected for the trial with a little bit of guidance, such as using some articles that previously had semi-protection to see if we would get more constructive edits. During the actual trial, the most problematic articles had to be removed from PC and returned to semi-protection due to excessive vandalism. PC is doing next to nothing for us today on those 1000 articles. They are trial articles that will survive just fine without PC. This type of confusion is making it impossible for us to proceed. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 05:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 394:
Discussion of [[#Guy Macon|comment from Guy Macon]] moved here per the instructions. Comment mentioned the breaking of the promise for a time-limited trial.
:I agree with you. I do however believe, you've misidentified who and where promises were broken, attaching ill sentiment to the wrong antagonist. I think it is an honest mistake because this whole discussion is rot with false premise spawned by inappropriate interjections of innuendo and propaganda. If only we could know who think PC is useful and who think it has no purpose. By this poll I am convinced that some will support thinking they are supporting PC. It is as apparent now, as was said of the first straw poll, these results will not produce useful information. And it appears to have built in its own bias as well. Nothing at all like what I had hoped would emerge. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 05:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::Too late, My76; see Esuzu's comment above in this section. —<
:::This proposal is not directly related to supporting or opposing PC, thus any confusion is irrelevant. There are many PC supporters who are correctly supporting this proposal as a way to move us forward. If keeping the trial going was so great for PC, why is it still locked in limbo? —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 06:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::::In my oppose, I stated a desire to support this compromise. The reason I can not, is; It builds on a premise I do not accept. (will not) That is: I must concur that the trial ended months ago, continued without consensus, and concur that Jimbo is shown as a liar. Well I don't agree with those sentiments, I have stated why, and I have refuted them. Requiring me to adopt them as my own, creates the impasse. If the language simply stated we would like to suspend its use to facilitate discussion without distraction, I would support. I can be seen advocating such a compromise. To support a proposition which adds my name to a group who believe lies have been directly told is beyond good faith for my support. To one last point, when the idea of reaching a compromise was first being seriously considered, I was given the impression the subsequent trial would be guaranteed, not diluted to a possibility. Now I see that if this proposal advances, I can add it to my list of pipe dreams. Because it is a last stand, I will stand where I believe the best for Wikipedia is served. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 08:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 434:
:See [http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/106702/match=60-day%20trial+At%20the%20end%20of%20that,+unless%20the%20community%20clearly%20requests%20otherwise+we%27ll+turn%20it%20back%20off] <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> 03:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::Oh, a mailing list post. I do hate stuff kept off wiki. Anyway, we did request an extension, did we not? Regardless, I see no reason to shut off a useful tool because of hurt feelings. —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] <small>([[User talk:Elipongo|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]])</small> 04:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::We did request an extension - that expired 12/31/2010. And of course that deadline's been dodged so much I will be amazed if '''anyone''' will support '''any''' trial in the future. —<
::::The extension did not expire 12/31/2010 unless there was a delay in implementing the changes. I observed the implementation of changes so the effect of that date is irrelevant. Suggestions that there were not the things that were, is disconcerting. For example the 65% who were discounted as the significant group necessary for continuation after the trial. Or the 60% who supported continuation again, allowing if nothing was improved by December, we would turn it off and start over. Improvements were released prior to December, the trial did continue with significant consensus. This discussion is framed to validate these misconceptions and therefor is not a compromise at all. And I feel sure 65% would be called significant as long as it is related to turning it off. And what do we do if this proposal falls short of the 80% range which so many have suggested. Call it no consensus, Then what? [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 04:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::I don't think '''anyone''' at this point - pro or con - is even advocating aiming at 80%. I've seen more the 60-75% range as the target (I myself prefer 66% as the fairest to both sides, due to the issue's divisiveness). —<
::::::I agree. It would better derive as accepted consensus if the straw poll wasn't disregarded as insignificant, while accusing an unauthorized continuation. Each requisite milestone was achieved, the trial is not running against consensus. There is a wolf in sheep's attire appealing to good commonsense while looking rather nonthreatening. I think the wolf hopes to receive the advantage of these reasonable minds, but has intentions to scoff at them for gullibility. I require better than that. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 05:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
{{Od|::::::}}
Line 448:
===Response to History2007===
Discussion of [[#History2007|comment from History2007]] moved here per the instructions. Comment mentioned that more tools are needed to manage the "''untenable trend towards progressive increase of the effort spent by the most active authors''" to maintain quality.
:Except that maintaining any objective form of "quality" is nigh-on impossible (not to mention a very slippery slope into [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]), especially on subjects that attract polemics. [[Silvermoon's Law]] applies here: The idiot-proof has already been bested by idiots. In fact, when the trial was being debated, it was all but unanimously decided that PC was not to be used for "quality control" short of removing obvious vandalism or on BLPs (which are also susceptible to extremely subjective "quality" as notable people will sue at the drop of a hat for even sourced negative press). —<
::No, I can not agree with you. I see the very existence of Pending Changes as a deterrent to vandalism in general, given that the person making the change knows that it will not go un-noticed. In my experience vandals hope their changes go un-noticed, With Pending changes that hope evaporates away. And I see Pending changes as the first step in starting to make Wikipedia protect itself. That thesis I linked to was valid and we are seeing those effects now. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 07:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::This is an issue for the long-term usage of PC. It is irrelevant for ending the trial, but is a perfect example why having short-term and long-term issues intermixed is killing us. The issues surrounding long-term usage of PC are complicated and we need to be able to discuss them without the old trial hanging over us. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 07:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 480:
:::::There doesn't need to be a stalemate. What true harm is being done by leaving PC on articles that they are currently on, while things are being reviewed? I submit that not only is there truly no harm being done, and it has the potential to prevent harm. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 08:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::You're correct that there doesn't need to be a stalemate if we were all logical beings that could separate such things in our heads. But human nature is such that it is a problem. I make no statement of why that is, it's just my observation of the facts on the ground. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 08:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::And that is exactly why I can never support PC - it assumes too much of Wikipedia's editors, and in most cases extremely incorrectly. —<
::::::I personally don't think PC is a good idea in general, having seen the experiences at de-wiki, but the main point is that this is not a discussion about PC in general, so comments like "lose momentum" or "rob us of a tool" are simply misplaced and thus not a good foundation to build your argument on. I am realist enough to know that PC probably can't be stopped anymore but if the community wants to implement it, then at least it should be done with a clear policy, not an indefinitely-prolonged trial. The point of a "trial" is that it ends and is then evaluated. If you continue the trial during the review, you cannot possibly review the results in any objective manner because the continued use will continually generate new data, which in then has to be reviewed, leading to an infinite loop that cannot be completed. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 08:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 586:
===Response to MC10===
''(section moved from above by'' —<
#: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)
#:::Do you have reason to debase someone's experience based merely on [[WP:editcount|editcount]]? [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<
#:::I have had essentially no direct experience with PC, but I don't think that prohibits me from asking a question to a user who posted their opinion in this ''discussion''. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 01:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#:I have the same request for clarification on MC10's comment that Yair rand has made above. I hope that my 1200 article space edits over the last 3 months is deemed sufficiently worthy to participate in this discussion. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#::Probably not. Off2riorob has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage#Unintended_consequences.3F objected to my participation in these discussions in the past on the same basis], and that was after I hit 45,000 edits. Apparently, they have to be very special edits that experience the editing flow in the way a normal editor would before your opinion counts for much.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 05:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#:::I think it was clear from the first poll that O2RR has a bias for PC, much like I'm biased against. —<
#::::Yes, apparently [[WP:ADHOM|very special edits]]. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<
#:::Off2riorob has no business telling people whether or not they can participate. If a participant's comments are deemed unsubstantive by the people organizing the consensus, that is their call, not his. Further, I just cast my !vote above, be it as it may. I still think removing it from BLP can do more harm than good if someone comes along the next day and puts libelous information in the article. While it's in the edit history always, it's less likely to be noticed if someone quietly shuffles it aside with PC, and we can always surpress those conflicting edits as well in extreme cases. [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
#::::I am opposing because it is currently being employed on low-traffic BLPs, and its protection is quite necessary. Semi-protection prevents IPs and newer users from being able to edit the page. I do think that we should continue employing its use (or at least stop adding more pages to its protection) until a final discussion results in a decision one way or another. And by the way, I don't think Off2riorob should be asking people to stop others from commenting; edit count usually doesn't mean much. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—[[User:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">mc10</span>]] ([[User talk:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">t</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/MC10|<span style="color:#000000">c</span>]])</span> 14:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 747:
:::@Both, lets be clear that by "common sense" I mean that they will do exactly the same as on their watchlists. If pending changes is causing them to introduce BLP issues, then they'll do exactly the same on their watchlists.
:::And frankly if everyone who wants to be involved is involved what would be the issue with adding a link to Special:Pending Changes? This motion would still pass, and it would be more legitimate. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 17:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Only Reviewers would be looking at that page, however. A watchlist notice, while not perfect (as it misses IPs) can attract a far more varied audience. —<
::::Eraserhead1, you should probably have your rights removed if refuse to read the guidelines. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 18:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::::<small>''(edit conflicts) ''</small>It's a little late in the game. While I empathize with editors whose real-life commitments have kept them out of the loop, I don't think there's any way that can be helped. There was a watchlist notice for a long time, there was mention in the ''Signpost'', and there were notices on the centralized discussion and community portal pages. (There probably were other notices as well.) It would be inappropriate at this time to start soliciting new comments on a widely publicized, well-attended RfC that has been open for weeks. And btw, I'm a bit unnerved by your casual attitude toward reading guidelines. How can anyone who hasn't bothered to read a given guideline contribute meaningfully to a discussion about the same? [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 18:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 755:
:::::Experienced users would not need to read the reviewers guidelines to review any edit - they already totally know how to review an edit and have been doing it every time they log on. Erasures comments are insightful and I totally agree with them. As he/she has mentioned - the advantages of pending are perhaps only known and understood by truly involved contributors such as him/her - on some pages that were previously vandal magnets only supportable by indefinite semi protection the disruptors have realized the valueless of their attempt to disrupt the article and some such articles have become almost vandal free - easily protected by a few experienced watchers. I have the feeling that we may find out more when the articles are removed from pending than is easily to be accurately reflected by requests for data from the trial, requests for data specifics are just a red herring - an impossible request, how must vandalism and libel has the tool stopped from being published by en wikipedia is an unanswerable question, as I previously said - the question of how beneficial has been this protection is perhaps easier to see when that protection is removed. Personally - all I am bothered about is protecting living peoples bios and that the primary goal of as open to contribute as possible interface - I can sacrifice one and if our options to protect articles is diminished by the removal of the pending protection tool from the box, I will be requesting admins support wider liberal long term semi protection of any BLP attacked without speedy correction of a vandal/defamation addition. I don't care how we do it but '''stiki users and recent changes pattrollers are not keeping defamation, libel attacks or vandalism against living people out of articles and we need to deal with that and stop people being long term defamed and libeled through this project.''' [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::Yes, but that is *at present*, where there's a 7.5:1 ratio between reviewers and articles. As I've noted, even applying to BLPs alone will cause the number of articles covered to skyrocket to upwards of 518,000, IIRC, for a ratio of ~1:69, assuming the number of reviewers remains static. —<
:::::::So lets start indefinitely semi protecting any BLP article that is defamed, libeled or vandalized and that attack content published and mirrored all over the www via this project is not removed within say, forty eight hours. I came to the position during the discussion that if pending was accepted that it should not be widely added like that to all BLP articles but just added as and when required, personally at current reviewer activity I feel that 50,000 low activity articles would be easily manageable, but with rejection of the tool, I will move to support liberal long term semi protection for any BLP that is left with attack content as stated above. Two very similar articles, [[Peter Mandelson]] indefinitely semi protected, [[George Osbourne]] pending protected - both completely stable - which is a more open editing environment for unconfirmed editors? It is unquestionably pending protection. If pending protection is removed from Osbourne the only future for that BLP is indefinite semi protection. While pending protection has been available to help protect the articles especially in relation to living people I have used it and found it extremely beneficial and if it is switched off nothing will change, I will continue to protect living people from defamation any way I can using whatever tools remain. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC) [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Then start reining in your own herd, Off2RioRob; I have seen a disordinate amount of "All BLPs" arguments on the same rationale you just gave. —<
{{outdent}}
I think applying to ''all'' BLP's would be overkill - and something I'm against, but what Off2riorob says sounds reasonable suggestion. We cannot allow defamation to stick around for ages as a mature project.
Line 795:
Pending changes for all articles would definitely be overkill. I think even for all BLP's its overkill. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 21:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
:Mind u all: we aren't an encyclopedia that ANYONE CAN EDIT. We aren't a blog of nonsense that anyone can edit. Wikipedia is many ENCYCLOPEDIAS with qualities, these qualities gets traffic, this traffic attracts vandalism. Vandalism doesn't need verifiability, reliable source, neutral point of view, notability, and goes LIVE. These QUALITIES need protection, otherwise we disappear... --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 03:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
::Even with such protection editor flight will kill us far faster than vandalism will, Chris. Can't have an encyclopedia without editors. —<
:::I don't mind Sports & Entertainment. But I do think we are drowning on BLPs and Science. I do think too, that PC by default is over the top. But de:wikipedia is surviving and has quality, almost no kiddy or ill vandalism goes live, that is nice. Checks and balances, what shall we do ??? If we do nothing, then we disappear. If we are too tight, then we don't get the new editors that we need. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 08:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
::::de.wp has a culture entirely different from en.wp. The same can be said for any other WP in relation to any other WP. —<
:::::Generally cultural differences are always vastly outweighed by cultural similarities. I doubt its different with Wikipedia. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 21:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::I agree. But on the otherside, the American way of life of a self-made man has clubs a lil bit more open than the German and British ones...--[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 14:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
| |||