![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | Raw data from phase two available
here. |
In the period since the trial has begun, we have had surveys that have demonstrated repeated and frequent complaints from new editors that even the present English Wikipedia is too difficult to figure out when getting started. see WT:Wiki Guides/What was your new user experience (note, link fixed by Chzz 08:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)). this makes it even clearer than it was several months ago that -- since a priority is getting & keeping new users--this system is unacceptable as adding yet further complication. The proper course is to stop further work in development of this system, and end the trial, ending any attempt to continue it, to retain articles in it, or to work on modifying it. It would still remain necessary to analyze it, but if analysis of the trial shows that it was nonetheless helpful on article quality, then we can try to invent some other way to accomplish that goal. I did not previously feel so strongly negative about it, but this and similar surveys have convinced me. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The idea of a 'protected page' is quite intuitive. "Sorry, you can't edit this, it is protected" - easy. Semi adds a slight twist to that, but even so, saying "Sorry, new users cannot edit this" is pretty clear. But pending changes is not. If the user edits the page, they see their change (plus the unreviewed notice) but, if they move away from the page, and then go back to it, their change is "gone" (if not reviewed"). Then, if they click "edit", the change is back in there. This issue has been discussed previously; please look in the archive of this page and the project page - I know, they're long and messy - we could do with summarizing the content. Chzz ► 08:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope this isn't too early to think about the next phase. I quite like the ideas laid out by at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 2#Issues to be resolved but there are also some things worth considering on the first attempt at a phase 3.
I guess there are two things for us to discuss here.
Yaris678 ( talk) 14:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
PC has been on for quite a long time, and I haven't seen any real statistics anywhere, not counting the few pages linked to from Wikipedia:Pending changes/Metrics. Surely there were some articles with PC being applied for random durations in large enough tests to get some real statistics, without being distorted by people turning on/off PC because it's helpful/unhelpful at the moment? How much the editing frequencies rose compared to semi-protection, how much it drops compared to unprotected, how often users whose first edits were to a PC article will make future edits in comparison to if their first edit was to a statistically identical article not under PC, etc? Could someone provide some links? -- Yair rand ( talk) 03:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Feb 1 to date - looking at Alaska as representative (well, first) on the list: 16 IP edit sequences were rejected by reviewers, and 2 were accepted (pretty abysmal quality rate on the IP edits?), ClueBot only caught 8, and caught 1 registered editor for a bad edit. The article is open to IPs, and the bad edits were pretty much all by IPs, and a large majority were caught by Pending Changes. Then Britney Spears, first BLP on the list: No IP edits, and cluebot caught zero improper registered user edits. 9 edit sequences were rejected by reviewers (one initially accepted, then rejected by another reviewer). This shows a significant benefit is just over one month on a specific BLP. Then John Diefenbaker which should be representative of a rarely edited BLP. 4 rejected IP edits. Zero IP edits accepted. Zero IP edits caught by Bot. Even on a slow page, the use of Pending Changes is shown to prevent "interesting edits" from being made public, and more efficiently than the current bots can do it. And, amazingly enough, reaching statistical significance extremely quickly. Collect ( talk) 11:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, so let's have a look at the first of those, more thoroughly;
Edits, from that point onwards;
User | Date | Diff | Comment |
---|---|---|---|
21:29, 1 December 2010 | 86.145.67.137 | [4] | Plain Vandalism |
Reverted by Cluebot [5] | |||
17:00, 2 December 2010 | 204.39.176.72 | [6] | Plain vandalism |
Reverted by confirmed user [7] | |||
13:15, 3 December 2010 | 209.204.81.151 | [8] | Plain vandalism |
Reverted by confirmed user [9] | |||
20:53, 3 December 2010 | 216.67.81.116 | [10] | Subtle vandalism? Date change, no ref |
Reverted by confirmed user [11] | |||
---31 edits by registered users, all auto-accepted--- | |||
07:29, 5 December 2010 | 76.218.207.39 | [12] | Anon grammar fix (it's) |
Accepted | |||
---5 edits by registered users, all auto-accepted--- | |||
19:12, 5 December 2010 | 75.106.117.180 | [13] | Plain vandalism |
Reverted by Cluebot [14] | |||
---2 edits by registered user, auto-accepted--- | |||
21:38, 5 December 2010 | 99.242.122.15 | [15] | Unref'd change to a number |
Reverted by registered user [16] |
Net effect of PC (compared to semi): One anon added an apostrophe. They have made no other edits. And how much time was wasted in 'reviewing'? Hard to tell. We did stop "Hello Mum" etc. appearing for a few seconds on the article.
If someone wants to go on with this type of analysis, it might be useful.
Chzz ► 15:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Freddie Mercury has had PC for all of 2 days - in prior 2 days, more than a dozen iffy edits - 2 IP edits rejected now due to PC. Long time IP problem area - solved by PC. One more sample showing that PC works. Collect ( talk) 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you know, there is a list at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Metrics/Anonymous edit quality where some edit analysis is made. This shows examples where PC 'doesn't work', such as Ann Coulter, and examples where PC 'works', such as The Mighty B!, Forrest J Ackerman , the latter being a good example of PC being helpful to test if protection is still needed (a RFC view mentioned this). Cenarium ( talk) 17:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you have to compare the vandalism rate with no protection vs vandalism attempts under PC. Just examining the vandal edits submitted under PC ignores all the times where PC caused the vandal to not even bother to try. 69.111.194.167 ( talk) 16:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
In the event that PC is ultimately removed from all articles by consensus, I would support still allowing PC-2 together with semiprotection on the few articles where the only alternative is full protection. This would make Wikipedia more open, since autoconfirmed accounts would be able to edit, rather than everybody having to use {{
editprotected}}
.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
12:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Discussion of long-term PC issue moved here from Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011#Comparing_to_semi-protection_and_robbing_momentum. — UncleDouggie ( talk) 09:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
SirFozzie, you compare PC to semi protection, and say that since, in your opinion, it's "better" (in that it is less restrictive), we should keep on using it. However, this only applies if we never apply PC except from in case where we would also be happy to apply semi-protection. Do you agree that we should only ever use PC in these cases? If not then surely it is irrelevant to compare PC to semi-protection? See also: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 2#PC is not an alternative to semi-protection. Also, isn't the "momentum" PC has a headlong rush without actually stopping to see what's happening and properly consider the implications that continued use of PC has for the future of the project? Do you think this is a good way to implement a new feature? Personally I feel it's got a little bit too much "momentum", and stopping to catch a breath and think this through a little bit would be a good idea. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 08:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. It was that way when you got here, so it's ancient history and okay, maybe even a good thing! I'm sure antebellum Southern plantation owners felt the same about their peculiar institution. So if vandals and IPs worry you so much you should be advocating for universal semi-protection since you don’t trust your fellow editors to review the edits… as we've always done (that's what one's watchlist is for, no?). What I see in PC is a tool with the potential to make Wikipedia more truly an "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" than it has been in many years! You speak of "wielding nightsticks", yet I note that you retained your "rollbacker" right. Rollback is much more of a stick, with its abrupt nature and uneditable edit summary, than is PC with the glorified "undo" button that is its "reject" button. I really think you need to examine your motivations here, because they seem contradictory to me. In the meantime, please go to Special:AdvancedReviewLog and get some real-world, current data instead of relying on outlier examples and speculation. — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 03:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that PC will be removed from articles as the current state of discussion suggests, as commented above we need to consider the next phase. I suggest that we start the elaboration of a compromise proposal, either for a new trial, or an implementation of indefinite duration, maybe with mandatory reconsideration, with a fully fledged use policy. This can be done concurrently with a questionnaire with questions on specific policy issues. The proposed policy should be based on this RFC and other feedback such as the questionnaire if done. It should then be proposed to the community. If it doesn't gain consensus, we modify it in light of the new feedback and can propose a new one. As I've said already, I do not think it is possible to offer multiple proposals at a same time, because it's extremely difficult to discern consensus in such cases. I would also like that we do not rush, so as to avoid making the community tired of discussing PC. The basis for the policy already exists, at WP:PC, and the basis for a reviewing guideline exists at WP:RG, we can start from there. Cenarium ( talk) 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, you seem to be advocating a jury, looking at the discussions, and writing a "guide" - what is that? A policy on how PC can be used? There is absolutely no way such a policy would be accepted without consensus. If the jury attempts to put forth a page saying "This is how we're using PC for now; we'll work out the details later" - then it'll be rightly lambasted. It simply will not work. Nobody can magnanimously decide how PC will be used - no matter how carefully they analyse the discussions. And if, instead, the jury comes out with a proposal - then it'll require discussion. And yes, the discussion would be long, and complicated - with counter-proposals. And rightly so.
I'm amazed at your "I told you so" comment [21] on the current proposal. Nobody has "forced aside" anything - it's simply that quite a few people don't think it is the best way forward.
There was a consensus for the current proposal - even you, Beeblebrox, seemed to accept there was "general agreement" for the "side RfC" (as you called it). Personally, I'd like to have seen a little bit more discussion before it actually became a live proposal - but, I don't think there were many objections to it.
Whereas...for this "questionnnaire" - I am still not seeing a "general agreement". I'm seeing lots of people saying "whoa there, are you sure this is a great idea?".
I'm concerned that Beeblebrox wrote, The idea behind that process is to gather input rather having a dogfight between positions, - hold on; isn't an RfC supposed to be about discussion? ...and to use that input to construct a rough guide - so you think PC would be used in accordance to some "rough guide", without policy?
If you go ahead with the questionnaire, I wish you the very best of luck - but it is against my advisement. And I reserve the right to leave a message, two or three months down the line - if it hasn't achieved anything - saying, "I told you so". Chzz ► 15:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
So, a question's been tickling the back of my mind. I think a comment above brought it to the fore, namely about how discussions have resulted in a hopeless, tangled, and inconclusive mess.
We've got a name for that kind of a result. It's called "no consensus". I don't think continually rephrasing and reformatting the question is going to come to a different outcome, nor do I think that asking the question over and over is really an appropriate way to do so. If we're not seeing a clear consensus to make a major structural change (and PC is a very significant change), that change does not have the requisite support to be made. Just like any other policy change proposal which does not achieve a consensus, the proposal fails.
We require clear, unambiguous consensus to make far less drastic policy changes than this one. If over several months of trying, this effort at a change proposal has not received a clear and unambiguous consensus, it is a failed proposal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Post by Yaris678 moved to #Ideas for what happens next. Yaris678 ( talk) 00:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
(To Seraphimblade) Are you kidding ? There has not been a single proposal put forward since the end of the trial, not one. So how could the proposal "have failed" ? Cenarium ( talk) 23:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with some of what Seraphimblade is saying. We have an inconclusive mess and very little consensus.
However, I don't think we should drop the whole idea yet. A lot of people want to use Pending Changes in some form. I think if we tried to work out now some kind of policy towards PC we would reach no consensus, again. I think we should try something. I have two ideas of what that something could be.
Yaris678 ( talk) 21:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Yaris, thanks for mentioning that TED talk - fascinating. I was particularly interested to hear about H. R. McMaster - it's a pity our article doesn't do him justice.
I agree regarding the need for "field testing" - however, disagree with the idea of selecting a project group.
PC can be used in so many different ways - and its effects are different, in differing circumstances. By limiting the remit to a specific proj, we'd only see one type of use (for wont of a better term).
I do think that some form of carefully controlled, specific trial, with measurable objectives - all defined and agreed before it starts - would be the way ahead. But I think that forming an appropriate proposal for such a trial is a very complex task - which is why I think we'd need a "bunch of people" (committee, jury, team...whatever you want to call it) to thoroughly analyse the mass of discussion re. PC, and attempt to formulate a specific, clear proposal which they believe could obtain consensus. This is again, in essence, what I suggested some weeks ago here.
I am convinced that, one way or another, that is the only way that progress can be made. I'm also convinced that it won't happen until the trial is finally closed down - because I don't think it will be possible to get any true consensus until that happens.
I'm convinced that that is what will happen - maybe soon, if consensus for the current proposal is clear. Maybe later, after more months of lengthy discussions.
I also believe that asking users to complete questionnaires will not help in any significant way. I'm concerned that it is being suggested without any clear idea about how it could possibly be evaluated. We've seen brief mentions of some jury-like process, but nothing in any detail. Collecting huge amounts of data without first working out what you'll do with it, does not seem likely to be productive, to me.
In addition, the questionnaire idea goes against the idea of permitting discussion and consensus. If a bunch of (tens or hundreds of) users produce their own view, their own notion - without being able to discuss it and look for common ground - I fear that will not help. Chzz ► 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, I like this idea. I think that maybe it will be possible to come up with some kind of synthesis of all these ideas. But firstly, judging by the response, I am not sure my essay idea has been understood. Although it is inspired by the questionnaire idea is different. The sort of things I am hoping we will get are:
And we may get some more polemic ones, but that is OK, up to a point. At least an essay will allow people to explain why they are massively for or against, in a way that is clearer than your average talk-page rant.
We could have some kind of central page, perhaps where the essays are categorised. This could help people get an overview of the opinions on PC and form a good basis for a discussion about what we should actually do. I would also encourage people to help each other out with their essays, although the user concerned would have the final say over any contentious edits.
And people will of course go back and refine their ideas as they think about them or in response to comments. This will hopefully keep the ideas easy to understand and prevent the WP:TL;DR problem that you get with a long discussion. The WP:TL;DR problem prevents people from coming in half way though because they would have to read a mass of discussion... but if we have essays setting out neatly what the current thoughts are then it should help.
Secondly, I think the difficulty with getting any future trial up and running will be agreeing on the policies to be followed during the trial. I think my WikiProject-based trial idea gets round that by reducing the number of people that have to agree. Your idea is similar in that it would ask for about 12 people to look at the discussion and come up with a proposed trial with some new policies to go with it... but everyone would have their opinion on that proposal and it would be hard to get going. But if only the people in the WikiProject had to agree it would be a lot easier.
I can see your point about a WikiProject-based trial only looking at one type of article. But I think that it its strength. That makes it easier to reach a consensus. Obviously the consensus would only be temporary. We’d then have to look at other types of article. But it would be a start.
I'm not saying my ideas are right and your ideas are wrong. I am just trying to be clear about why I thought my ideas are good. That way, as I say, we might be able to come up with some kind of synthesis that takes the best from each.
Yaris678 ( talk) 16:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Two thoughts:
My opinion is that a second trial is definitely going to be necessary before full adoption of pending changes is decided upon. The problem with the first trial is that nobody defined good trial criteria or metrics prior to starting it up; the result is that almost all arguments related to that trial are either anecdotal or emotional, with little actual data being discussed. – Grondemar 21:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
To clarify. My idea is not that people write essays that are intended to become policy. Some of the essays will argue for a certain policy, but they will do more than state that policy. They will look at the evidence and explain why that policy would work. Other essays will not be directly related to policy (as the word is understood on Wikipedia). You might get an essay saying "If we try to resolve our differences in this order it is more likely to reach consensus". You might get an essay that says "It all makes a lot more sense if you look at it like this".
I guess you could see this essay by me as an example of the sort of thing that you might get. It isn't about PC... but it lays out the background and analysis before making some very tentative suggestions. Doing it this way means that it is open for someone to come along and say "I agree with your analysis, but I think a better way of dealing with the issues identified is..."
I agree that the word "competition" is perhaps not the best one (it was the word that came to hand at the time). The idea is not necessarily that we will pick one or two winners and everyone else is a loser. The idea is that we all develop our ideas in a clear and well-argued way. I guess there is the possibility that someone will write an essay that goes down in history as the great solution to the PC issue. If that happens then the fame for the author will be a prize of sorts. But we don't have to bank on that happening... the essays may just be one step towards resolving the issues.
In terms of deadlines... potentially it could be a very long-term project. Perhaps it would be good to have some kind of initial deadline. Say... after 2 months we will look at what essays we have and look at where we want to go. Maybe we will implement the suggestions of some. Maybe we will decide that some need to be developed more or that the ideas of some can be brought together.
Yaris678 ( talk) 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the only way forward is the elaboration of a single proposal, based on the views expressed in the RFC. Contradictory debate should not occur between different proposals, but within the proposal itself, and resolved through compromise. When it's considered ready, we submit it to the larger community. Cenarium ( talk) 12:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I really like the idea expressed above.
“ | give the draft policy to 20 users and have them each review the same set of 50 randomly selected changes chosen from the types of articles and users that would be eligible for PC under the policy. Check how well their reviews agree with each other and collect feedback on where they felt the policy provided inadequate guidance. | ” |
— UncleDouggie, 04:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
I wouldn't describe it as a thought experiment, as UncleDouggie did. It is an actual experiment. I guess I might call it an off-line experiment in that we are not experimenting directly with Wikipedia.
Anyway, the point is that it would give us insight into what reviewers have to deal with in practice and where differences of opinion might have a practical effect. It should get to the bottom of " The duties of the reviewer are unclear", which I believe is the most fundamental issue facing Pending Changes.
Let's do it!
Yaris678 ( talk) 18:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Toward the end of the interim poll, I came in late with this comment. Because it was late there never was feedback. Chzz and I had a private discussion which left us in disagreement. I still maintain this position. Furthermore, I went to consider a semi-protected edit request which had been done upon my arrival. I was however reminded of my earlier comment and the fact it has not been vetted. Review this new users comments and consider if in fact this is a valuable consideration. My76Strat ( talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Would someone familiar with making a wiki book consider consolidating all of the relevant conversations, from the beginning, into such a book? Then it would be possible to review the entire conversation if one was so inclined. My76Strat ( talk) 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know, officially this is not a vote, but after casting you 'opinion' many many times about yet another aspect, I and I know many others are getting really tired of this prolonged discussion to achieve community consensus. For those done with the discussion, I have created a user page where you can cast you final opinion now and be done with it. The page is found here (removed page, the opposers will continue to misrepresent the will of theity till they win)]], and once the discussion of the final proposal gets to a final round of consensus forming, those opinions will be added to the tally at that time. There are only two opinions you can agree with: Implementation versus rejection. If you want a detailed say, don't use this option. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I can understand the sentiment. It's exactly two years since the original trial proposal has been approved. And debate has been occurring over and over since (and already long before). As I've noted above, now that the issue of the current status of the implementation is about to be resolved, which was the main reason for wanting to address the matter urgently, we'll be able to move forward on the elaboration of a proposal in a calmer and more 'consensual' manner. We won't have to make another big consultation of the community on this until the proposal is ready, which will provide a break. Cenarium ( talk) 22:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I realize the way forward is not clear yet. So I wish to propose a motion, to be handled in the same way as the current motion proposing removal of PC. I know some users may have fundamentally different ideas on how to proceed, but the way I suggest is how the trial itself went into being, while we were in a same confused situation at the time, so we now it can work. I think this addresses two absolutely essential issues: the need to have a proposed policy on the use of PC in any proposed implementation, and the fact that when multiple proposals or when multiple options are presented to the community in controversial matters, it is extremely difficult to determine consensus, and results are often heavily contested (as seen e.g. in the poll that followed the trial), while a binary question (do you approve or not ?) is simple and non-ambiguous.
It is as such:
Now that the issue of the current use of pending changes has been resolved, it is possible to move forward on addressing the question of future use of pending changes. The following framework is proposed:
Please indicate support or oppose with brief reasoning in the
comments section. Comments longer than 1000 characters, responses to the comments of others and general discussion of the topic should go in the
discussion section.(Unneeded to make a formal proposal if we reach an agreement here.)
Cenarium ( talk) 00:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to figuring out those types of policies ("where and how much to use it" for instance), but he may have a point that we need to simplify what we have, thereby creating a basic skeleton for the system. So, let's start with trying to simplify everything, then try to expand. Then we look for support or opposal. Thoughts? CycloneGU ( talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)"I would wonder if the 'PC is confusing' meant the policy, the software itself. Probably both. Anyway, if it does get kept in the long run, then the policy about where and how much to use it might change drastically, so I wouldn't want you to expend a lot of energy reworking the policy only to have your work be meaningless. So I think the best thing to do for now would be to simplify the existing policies as much as humanly possible, while leaving them to fit the current set of use cases as the trial laid out. Make sense?"
So are we thinking that Wikipedia:Pending changes/Draft proposal should contain everything that will go into WP:PC, WP:RG and the PC-related bits of WP:PROTECT the protection policy? That would probably be easier to coordinate, during the drafting stage, than modifying those pages directly. To a certain extent that is just a detail. I think the motion is pretty-much ready to go now. I think the motion will provide clarity on what we are trying to do. We can always look again at the other options if:
Yaris678 ( talk) 09:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be a train wreck to put this out as the next phase of the RfC. The second bullet has three options, which people will try to vote on. The last two lines discuss a future proposal, but everyone will read it as this proposal and mass confusion will ensue. Why is this controversial? Which of the ideas represented on this page would it not permit within it's framework? Certainly we would need to work through the issues list in my proposal somehow to draft the policy. I assume that since Beeblebrox has left the building, there isn't much, if any, support for the questionnaire or "go for broke". What else is at issue? — UncleDouggie ( talk) 10:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's a new version, I hope this is clearer:
Now that the issue of the current use of pending changes has been resolved, it is possible to move forward on addressing the key question of future use of pending changes. A compromise proposal will be elaborated then submitted to the community; the following framework will be respected:
Feel free to edit provided you don't substantially change the meaning. Cenarium ( talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
tl;dr all of this, only most. Even the revised proposal is confusing as hell. The people "voting " on the front side of this page were confused about what "support" and "oppose" meant in the context of that proposal. I can only barely grasp what you're saying here, cenarium. I agree with the editor who said "it seems that you're proposing that we have a proposal." It doesn't make sense. Why don't you just start the document that you're proposing that we propose in your sandbox, invite everyone here to edit and make policy suggestions until we think we've got something real to propose. Cliff ( talk) 04:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have requested informal mediation to resolve the impasse here. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-03/Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So, who turns off the PC trial, and how is it done? -- JaGa talk 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I stopped by to post my answers but it looks like it's flushed? Kind of difficult to figure out without reading the wall of text above. Is there a 1-line answer to whether it's finished/still pending/tossed? Thx. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 09:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. My answers are at
User talk:75.57.242.120/Pending changes questionnaire.
* They were mostly written a few weeks ago when the questionnaire was first posted (I was waiting for it to go live) but I've just tweaked them a little. If someone wants to pagemove it to my user space from user talk, that will let other people comment on its talk page.
75.57.242.120 (
talk)
02:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. All I mean to say is that we should permit editors to individually ask that articles which have benefitted, in their opinion, from PC, should be allowed to request that PC be tagged for such articles. As they are willing to tend to the revisions, there should be no concerns that others will be given an unfair burden of reviewing articles at all. Collect ( talk) 01:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It's 122 to 61. It's been at a 2 to 1 margin pretty much the entire time, and will in all likelihood continue to be at a 2 to 1 margin for however long it continues to run.
When does this poll end? When can we close it? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I split this chunk off from the above thread because they are starting to diverge in topic. For one thing, this little section has become an enraged nine headed venom spewing hydra, while the above was a cordial discussion on timing. Now I've got nothing against hydras, especially in the proper context (Dungeons and Dragons, video games, fantasy literature, tee shirts, etc.) but this is a little much. Let's remember that people posting posting here have strong opinions on the matter and deep protective streaks for Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Suppose you were running a limited term medical trial, would you stop the treatment after the agreed time if it proved successful? Would it be more ethical to keep your word or to break it? To what extent does this analogy apply? AJRG ( talk) 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Harming Wikipedia hurts real people two. People who rely on Wikipedia Don't think any harm has occurred? Consider these comments:
The above quotes clearly show that harm has been done. This proposal is just a baby step toward mitigating that harm. You cannot unring the bell. We need a firm and clear published policy that promising to try something for a limited amount of time and then breaking that promise will never again be tolerated on Wikipedia, and a formal apology for doing it in this case. That is the bare minimum required to start to regain the editor's trust. Guy Macon ( talk) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
In the week that the closing of this RfC has been delayed per the request of a couple of contributors, a grand total of six latecomers have arrived to indicate their support or opposition, yet the byte count of the project page has grown by 20 percent. I make no negative assumptions about the intentions of all who added to that growth, but I do question whether anything that has been added during that period offers any fresh insight to illuminate the question in a meaningful new way.
This phase is a rather straightforward up-or-down proposal to (depending on one's choice of wording) end the trial or end the use of PC until there is clear consensus whether—and, if so, how—it should be deployed. The support–oppose ratio has remained essentially unchanged over the course of phase three, at roughly 2–1 in support of the proposal. While major RfCs on hot-button issues aren't decided on the basis of numbers alone, the most significant points on which the question turns appear to be found, succinct and clear enough, along with the quantifiable element in the "support proposal" and "oppose proposal" sections.
Assuming the presumptive closer is still on board, we're probably only 1–3 days away from the end. There's already a ton of material for even the most patient reader to digest, and the discussion appears to be going around in circles, at best, and perhaps degenerating into something less than perfect civility in places. With the greatest respect to everyone, I'd like to suggest, fwiw, that further comments—unless they offer a genuinely novel perspective—might be more constructively placed here on the talk page. Rivertorch ( talk) 01:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
On 15:45, 16 February 2011, this RfC was born. Yes, there were earlier larval stages, so one could argue that it is much older, but the February 2011 iteration was born one two months ago. Everybody is invited to put on their party hats and blow their noisemakers at exactly 15:45 today. No cake: as GLaDOS once said, "Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test."
Guy Macon (
talk)
15:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem with semi-protection is that only autoconfirmed user can edit.Though anonymous users have played a role in vandalism in most of the articles ,but we have to admit that some of the anonymous Users do actually contribute to Wikipedia by making constructive edits.So I think Pending changes level 1 will be viable alternative to semi-protection because in pending changes protection anyone can edit unlike semi-protection.Moreover if anonymous user or any other user create vandalism on the article,his edit can be unaccepted by reviewer. Suri 100 ( talk) 02:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If you think majority of IP users vandalise wikipedia ,then why not semi-protect all pages? Suri 100 ( talk) 06:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Why cant we move all semi-protected pages to pending changes level 1 protection? Suri 100 ( talk) 12:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There are some occasions that pending is useful in ways that no other current protection possibility is, such as at this article. The addition of pending in Feb has allowed experienced users a degree of editorial control over it, this has resulted in the first decent version I have ever seen. Prior to pending being applied the content was largely an in out, in out. battleground between fans attempting to add promotional content and people that don't like him adding negative issues weakly cited. This resulted in the article being a total mess as some poor additions were spotted and removed and some were not. With the constant inability to protect and improve the article many users wanting to NPOV and improve the content simply walked away writing it off as a waste of time. The attraction of uninvolved experienced editors with pending permission to watch the article and the realization from the promotional supporters of the subject and the vandals that they were wasting their time has stabilized the extremely contentious BLP and yet there is still the option that an unconfirmed user with a beneficial addition can directly post it to the article and have it quite quickly accepted. Adding semi protection to a disrupted article does not attract any additional watchers at all whereas adding pending protection effectively adds and attracts a multitude of experienced watchers. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I accept your statement partially.There are some IP editors who are experienced in making constructive edits to wikipedia.
Suri 100(
talk)
12:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
How is this discussion relevant to the question of whether the short-term trial should be stopped after having already dragged on 7 months after the agreed upon stop time? You seem to equate "PC is a good thing" with "the original commitment to have a trial doesn't need to be honored".— Kww( talk) 16:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The analysis of the article on Zakir Naik is very interesting. Off2riorob is saying that PC is good because it helps us to filter out non-neutral additions to an article. That sounds great, but it isn't what PC was designed to do. You are only supposed to reject obvious vandalism and BLP violations. OK, so some of the non-neutral statements will be BLP violations, but do you see my point?
BTW, I am pretty neutral on whether PC is a good thing and I also think that the current reviewing guidelines are unhelpful, so this isn't an attack on PC. If anything, I want to discuss this sort of thing more, so we can reach some sort of consensus on what PC is for.
Yaris678 ( talk) 18:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This has been often a comment that its unclear 'how to review and connected to that who should be given the permission, so in an attempt to clarify... originally for the trial to get a decent amount of reviewers to get the issue off the ground the permission was given widely and you had to refuse it if you didn't want it and users have said they are confused as to how to review, but as I see it users are reviewing all the time with or without the permission...So users with the permission should review as they would usually do to any edit to their watched pages, as such it almost doesn't even require writing down. You have a look at it and if its uncited and likely false you revert it as you usually would. If its a vandal edit you revert it as you usually would, if its defamation or libel you revert it as you usually would, if it looks useful but uncited you can go look for a citation and add it also and accept it...you do not under any circumstances have to accept anything but vandalism or libel and then re-edit the addition...none of this needs writing down, if you don't know how to review a desired edit then you just should not have the permission. This should be the condition of being given the user right in the future, you should be able to explain to an administrator how you are going to review a contribution and your edit history should support that you are able to edit and assess a desired addition as you say you will if you are given the tool. As such the question is not that you should be asking, how to review? but the question should be asked of you, how do you review? - Off2riorob ( talk) 17:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This came up a lot during the earlier discussions and I see it as one of the core issues users have with the tool that they either didn't know how to review or they though only libel or vandalism should be reverted. Wikipedia:Reviewing#Reviewing process - do users think this is unclear and could be improved? Does it reflect how you review ? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob's comments above about reviewing are interesting, but I'm wondering: What if we don't have a special group of reviewers, and instead let all autoconfirmed users be able to accept edits? (All autoconfirmed users are already able to unaccept, by simply reverting.) Sure, an autoconfirmed user may accept a bad edit, but the same user may make a bad edit, and it will be automatically accepted. (If an autoconfirmed user accepts e.g. obvious vandalism, I think s/he ought to be treated as if s/he had made the edit.) The point is to reduce the number of bad edits, and so far it has worked well on this article. Would this create more support for PC? I'd rather have this kind of PC, than no PC. Dugnad ( talk) 10:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
1. The vandalism should be understood as a pointer to future ones too. In the beginning an article should be considered to have admin level protection, and the level of protection should be decreased in exponential(my preference)/linear manner till lowermost level, and when vandalism increases the level of protection should be increased to twice its previous level, then again increased in same manner till highest point. This may not happen by just one or say a limited number of attempts at vandalism, depending upon load on personnel, so attempts that can increase protection level may be 5 in the beginning, 3 on another day, 2 on still another day and so on. When vandalism decreases, protection level can be reduced exponentially again after a certain period(depending upon load on personnel) and then still further exponentially it later in case there is no vandalism. In short, when a lot of vandalism is detected, increase protection level by twice, when it decreases then decrease the protection level exponentially.
2. At a basic level, one must come to peace with the understanding that there are two sides to any issue, and perhaps encouragingly or not, the man with references wins.
3. In case of contentious references, the issue should be resolved on discussion page first, (till then the section could be locked).
4. Vandalism should be treated lightly in case load on personnel is not much, and stringently otherwise.
Just my 2 cents. Thisthat2011 ( talk) 13:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a few days now and I think a concrete proposal for what to do about Pending changes going forward needs to be made. I'm not 100% clear about who should have the right to review articles, but I think we'll need one before taking it to the community.
Its not 100% and I'm sure it needs further tightening up, but I think its reasonably substantial
Feel free to make any comments and changes below. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Any further comments? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Any further comments on how Pending Changes level 2 should be used? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have boldly closed the current RFC - what to do with Pending protection in the short term. The section is awaiting administrative closure at their convenience. User:Newyorkbrad and User:WJBscribe have offered to assess the discussion. Off2riorob ( talk) 09:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Just as a friendly observation, so please do not misunderstand this as a comment directed at anyone in particular, it seems to me that this page has slowed to being a conversation amongst a relatively small number of users, so perhaps it would be best to wait for the administrative summary before making plans that rest upon interpretations of the results that may not be generally agreed upon. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
What are the remaining issues? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 11:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
As some of you know, I've been asked to opine on and close this phase of the RfC, and I've been reviewing it for that purpose. I find that I'm not quite clear on what is timely to close at this time. Is the only question currently to be closed out, the narrow one of whether to continue the "trial," or something broader? I don't want to stir up a huge fuss or drama by closing the discussion either more broadly or more narrowly than people are expecting.
I'd appreciate any input on this question within 24 hours so I can wrap up the appropriate aspect(s) of the discussion. Thanks. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that the RFC passes, I expect two specific results.
1: I expect every page that currently has PC to becomes a page that does not have PC.
2: I expect the statement "This proposal does not affect potential future use of Pending Changes; it is only to end the trial." to be taken seriously. No "something broader." No "how to move forward." No additional issues "divined from the comments." Once again a firm promise was made" "This proposal ... is only to end the trial." I expect that promise to be kept. Only means only. Guy Macon ( talk) 03:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Brad, it's good to see you here (indeed good to see any resolution in sight)! I think you can see from the talk here that the task before you is to determine consensus as to whether or not PC should be removed for now from pages where it is now. It would be very helpful to define clearly what the "rules" are, with respect to not adding PC to any more pages at this time and with respect to substituting semi-protection for the removed PC. It is agreed by all "sides" that this RfC does not speak to the potential future use of PC, and it would be helpful to repeat that explicitly (it comes from the requirement by the developers that the underlying infrastructure for PC not be removed and then reinstated). Some other editors are, additionally, looking for signals as to the level of community support for eventually using PC in some form; what you do or do not say about that should be a function of what you do or do not see in the consensus. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
For me, I believe that there is, and will continue to be if the RFC remains open or will be reopened, a 2 to 1 supermajority, if not a consensus outright, in support of ending the Pending Changes trial. That is to say, probably remove all articles currently under PC protection and replace with the appropriate level of standard admin protection using the Protection policy, which is a return to the status quo, or the status the wiki had before the introduction of PC. I’ll also note that most of the supports and opposes are based on principles, however, i.e. "a promise is a promise" and "PC is still valuable as a form of protection for current articles". I think, as soon as this RFC is closed, with NewYorkBrad’s administrator closing statements/comments/input/whatever, we can move on to a newer "phase", which would possibly address the second most-important issue of PC with a significant amount of consensus already garnered for it: PC on BLP articles. We can start a newer RFC out of this old one with questions like "Should PC be used on: 1) all BLPs? 2) some BLPs? 3) no BLPs?". :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This is another issue that users seem to want clarification. Do users have some feedback as to places and reasons that the tool should or should not be applied/restricted to certain sectors of the project? Off2riorob ( talk) 08:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion about this here. More feedback is needed. Thanks. — Mike Allen 00:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh boy. I didn't mean to start this.. — Mike Allen 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll be closing this out tonight (New York time). Sorry for the delay; it's been quite a week for me (real-world and otherwise). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
A few preliminaries. First, I'd like to thank the editors who came to my talkpage and asked me to close this discussion, for their confidence. Second, I'd like to apologize for the fact that it's taken me a few more days to finish reviewing the input than I had hoped. Third, I've tried not to write this closing using too much Bradspeak, but if I've failed, forgive me. Fourth, I'd like to ask that if I've posted this closing in the wrong place—e.g., if it should be in a nicely formatted box at the top of the project page or something like that—then could someone please copy it and put it there. (I don't think anyone wants me to delay this closure any longer while I figure that out.)
I'll begin by emphasizing the exact scope of this discussion. The proposal reads: The Pending Changes trial ended many months ago, but around 1000 articles are still using PC protection. It is proposed to remove pending changes protection from all articles, for now, with no prejudice against reinstating it in the future, in some form, based upon consensus and discussion. Thus, that's the only proposal I'm addressing here. The future of pending changes (or flagged revisions or anything else) on English Wikipedia is not being resolved today. And I'm not presenting my own views on PC/FR, partly because that would be off-topic and partly because I have mixed feelings about them.
I find that both supporters and opposers made many valid points throughout the discussion. The vast majority of the comments were reasonable and entitled to full respect in assessing the consensus. Unlike what we have unfortunately seen in many other contentious discussions on-wiki, I did not find many problems with frivolous views, SPAs, socking, or anything else that would warrant discounting any significant number of comments or !votes. (There was certainly some excessive rhetoric from a few commenters, and I hope that future PC/FR discussions can have less of that, but I saw nothing that significantly derailed the discussion.)
As closer, my task is to ascertain consensus, as this vague term is defined on Wikipedia. Clearly we do not have a consensus in the optimal sense of the discussion's converging on a result endorsed by more-or-less everyone. The policy page on consensus tells us that in such a case, "sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes."
Here, the number of commenters supporting the proposal is 127, and the number opposing is 65. That's a bit over 66% in support of ending the pending-changes trial now, without prejudice to community decision-making about a further trial or implementation of PC in the future. A voting result of 66% is not as high as we require for some decision-making (for example, most of the time it wouldn't be sufficient to pass an RfA, although ironically it would have been enough in the last election to get elected an arbitrator)—but it's a two-to-one margin and can't be disregarded either. For purposes of governance decisions on the English Wikipedia, two-to-one is almost a landslide. The basic outcome of the RfC is clear and it is that the current pending-changes trial should come to an end.
The closure comes with two caveats, however. (I am sure that no one expected a closure by me to end without at least two caveats.) The first of these is that we can't just turn off the PC trial by flipping a switch ten minutes from now. Although some of the articles that are currently part of the PC trial were chosen basically at random or as controls, others were put on PC because of serious and persistent vandalism, especially BLP-related vandalism, or of even more serious BLP-related problems. Editors will need time to review the list of articles currently on PC to ensure that as needed, they are semiprotected, placed on more watchlists, etc. Accordingly, the PC trial will end, with the possible exception noted below, 14 days from today.
The second caveat is that there may remain a few articles for which removing PC status would really be grossly irresponsible—an example might be if the trial list includes a handful of extremely sensitive BLPs that have been the subject of persistent vandalism or harassment by sleeper socks (so that semi'ing would be insufficient). This does not reopen, for this discussion, suggestions that "all BLPs should be on PC" or even "all high-risk BLPs should be on PC"—those are respectable viewpoints, and might be outcomes of a future consensus, but for better or worse, they clearly are not what the community has decided now. Still, I can imagine there being some extreme situations where it could be considered outrageous to remove PC with nothing to replace it, and where semiprotecting would be insufficient (and full-protecting would be unreasonable). Relatively few of either the supporters' or the opposers' comments addressed this possibility.
Therefore, I think there is a need for further input on this question: Given that there is a numerical consensus to discontinue the current pending-changes trial, should any exceptions be made for articles with a history of extreme problems that cannot be solved by other means? The most useful responses to this question, I might add, will contain specifics rather than generalities. Given that this RfC has been open for too long already, I ask that editors try to post comments on this new question within 7 days from today. I will post an update to this close afterwards. At that time I will also try to post some suggestions for the next phase of discussions about the future of this entire endeavor.
The proposal itself indicates that adopting it would not affect PC test pages, test pages created in userspace by user request, or the like. Such pages should continue to exist, so that editors who are curious what PC is or who are asked to comment about its adoption in the future, can experiment and know what is being talked about. This exception to "turning off pending changes" is included in the close.
I hope that these comments and conclusions are helpful to the community, and I am sure I don't have to ask that editors should feel free to comment on them. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Since there is not yet another place for comments, I leave mine here. I agree with the closure and thank you for taking the time to make it. With respect to the second caveat, I suggest that the 14 days until implementation should be enough time for interested administrators to put the (hopefully few) potentially problematic articles on full protection temporarily, together with a talk page message stating that anybody who believes that protection is no longer required can discuss it with the protecting admin or if necessary at WP:RUP. Sandstein 10:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
As for the caveat ... that constitutes extending the trial, albeit in a far more limited form. There isn't a consensus that there are any articles that need PC. I do not want to see the trial stretched out while we have another interminable discussion about which articles are special in some manner. We are already extremely late getting this thing put to bed, and further delays aren't necessary. Put all the test articles on semi-protection, and, if there are problem children, that's what full protection is for.— Kww( talk) 11:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer a clean break here, and exceptions will muddy the water.
Chzz ► 16:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Once all the articles are removed from PC, perhaps a notice can be placed at Special:PendingChanges so that reviewers understand why the activity there has ceased and so they don't waste their time repeatedly checking for non-existent articles to review. Maybe also a watchlist notice for reviewers using tools such as User:Joshua Scott/Scripts/pendingchanges.js and others not frequenting the Special:PendingChanges page. If there will still be some articles left under PC, it might be problematic since if Special:PendingChanges is usually empty, reviewers will fall out of the habit of checking. Mojoworker ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: "Given that there is a numerical consensus to discontinue the current pending-changes trial, should any exceptions be made for articles with a history of extreme problems that cannot be solved by other means?"
This assumes something that has not been established as a fact. I contend that articles with a history of extreme problems that cannot be solved by other means do not exist. Wikipedia worked just fine before this trial, and it will work just fine after PC is removed from all pages, as was clearly specified in the RfC. When the PC trial was first proposed, nobody said it was an emergency measure that is desperately needed to handle problems that cannot be solved by other means. It was presented as a trial of another form of protection that may have some advantages over existing forms.
Saying "should any exceptions be made for articles..." is really asking whether PC should, once again, be left on some articles in direct violation of consensus. There was ample opportunity to change the RfC so that it was a proposal to remove PC from most articles with some exceptions. That's not what the RfC proposed. I would really like to know exactly what part of "remove pending changes protection from all articles" is so hard to understand. It seems quite clear to me.
What will it take to get Wikipedia to finally follow consensus? Do we need to put up yet another RfC saying "It is proposed to remove pending changes protection from all articles. This time we really really mean it. All means all, no exceptions. Don't even think about retaining pending changes protection on a single article if this proposal passes. Seriously. Don't go there." Is that what it is going to take? Guy Macon ( talk) 20:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Chzz and Guy have said it well. I agree that consensus is clear for removal of PC and that exceptions would muddy the water. I'd add two points:
I in general appreciate and agree with what seems a thoughtful close on this contentious issue. While I personally do want to see PC implemented in the future and didn't see the harm in having pages where it is useful keep using it, I do in general agree with the principle to no longer add it to pages simply because the trial has ended. However, the "Exceptional examples" section below has brought up new thoughts. I do agree that admins. should not add it to pages through the requests for protection page, but I think if a quick consensus can be achieved at AN/I that a temporary occasional exception,ssuch as the election, be granted. Now, I do not think that the very few pages under this exception will require 5,000 reviewers, and this could actually cause other problems because many of them won't keep an active eye on the updates pages (I know I hadn't lately because initially I thought the trial had ended, and thus stopped using it), but having PC available at an agreement through AN/I for extreme occasional cases where it is warranted is still an option, and then it is immediately removed a few days later or when the possibly contentious period is an an end. It might have been rather useful during reports of Osama bin Laden's death, for instance...but after my experience at the Australian Prime Minister's page the day she was elected, maybe not, and maybe for this election being referred to it may be equally less useful. (Besides, I had an exceptional number of edit conflicts on bin Laden's page myself.) The idea still is that if agreement comes at AN/I, exceptions may be made for very brief periods (not meant to exceed 7 days in most instances). For right now, it's not a tool that admins. at the requests for protection are allowed to simply apply at a whim. Thoughts? CycloneGU ( talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
An interesting example is being discussed on Wales' talk page; as the point re. PC is tangential to that thread, I wanted to bring discussion here;
A user added info to a BLP about an affair the person had [25].
It was removed, and reinserted, a few times.
An editor in good standing ( Trident13 ( talk · contribs)) added it back, with a reference to a UK mainstream newspaper [26].
Much later, it transpired that the allegation was untrue, and it was reported in other newspapers that it was, in fact, a "smear campaign" [27].
I don't consider PC would have helped there, and I don't see that Trident13 did anything 'wrong'. Wikipedia, as a tertiary information providor, gives references to facts in 'reliable sources'. The newspaper in question is a tabloid, with a somewhat grubby reputation, but it's still an RS, surely. Sometimes, RS are wrong - but, is it really the duty of Wikipedia to investigate and check everything in newspapers?
Jimbo Wales said, That edit is more than enough to cause the instant removal of the reviewer flag [28].
If that is the case, then 'Reviewer' is something very different from what we've been discussing - and, it'd be a much higher standard required. Chzz ► 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Those instances, along with some of the recent comments on Jimbo's talk page, suggest to me is that when it comes to biographical content basic logic and reason, not to mention such niceties as consensus-based editing in a collaborative environment, are casually dismissed as irrelevant and replaced by fear-based emotional reactions leading to summary threats of blocking. That sort of "my way or the highway" attitude creates a chilling effect, making it literally impossible for to discuss policy nuances except in the most general terms. If this trend is carried to its logical conclusion, I predict an exodus of long-term editors; some will leave the project entirely, while others will simply choose not to edit any articles containing BLP elements.
Psychologically and sociologically, it's all quite interesting—some of the panicked cries of "libel" and "crisis" suggest something along the lines of group hysteria—but it's also deeply damaging to the project. Aside from threatening the continuance of the largely congenial editing environment that has marked Wikipedia's history thus far, it also may signal the end of any reasonable expectation that neutrality and comprehensiveness are attainable objectives in a large segment of our articles.
I have tried to remain open to the idea that something along the line of Pending Changes might be useful if applied sparingly under very stringent conditions, but I have to say that I am not optimistic about it. In fact, I'm worried there may be a move to apply it liberally to talk pages, effectively stifling any meaningful discussion except among those (dwindling few?) deemed worthy of the reviewer right. Rivertorch ( talk) 19:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody place an appropriate box announcing the result of the RfC at the top of the following pages?
Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 (AKA This page)
Wikipedia talk:Pending changes
Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer
Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Reviewer
...and possibly...
Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions
Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions
The notice should mention that PC can start up again. Guy Macon ( talk) 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely clear about the result given, nor how to present it. Is there any consensus to use any form of pending changes on any pages at all?
If there isn't, then why do we have to pussy-foot around this?
If there is - or, if there is a suggestion to use it - then a new proposal would be in order.
Otherwise, we're still in limbo - with PC in use, on certain articles, in certain cases, with certain persons able to review, with absolutely no agreement to do so. Chzz ► 02:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggested wording for a notice box to be placed on the pages listed above: Retracted; Off2riorob has a better wording (see below).
![]() | Administrators should start work immediately on removing the pending protection from all articles. In many cases, the removing editor will want to replace pending changes protection with semi-protection or full protection. This affects article space only; pending changes test pages created in userspace should continue to exist, so that editors can experiment. The deadline for having pending changes protection removed from all articles is Friday, 20 May 2011. |
Guy Macon ( talk) 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The Request for Comment on Pending Changes Protection is now closed. The consensus was that the trial is over and that Pending changes protection should be removed from all articles by Friday, 20 May 2011. - with no prejudice against reinstating it in the future, in some form, based upon consensus and discussion. |
- hi, can we please keep them all the same, so we should alter them all. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
We still do not have a notice on Special:PendingChanges. How do we make that happen? Guy Macon ( talk) 17:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
In the MediaWiki%3AProtect-text history I see the notice was added, but when I look at The current version of the page I do not see the notice. (tested on Firefox and Opera, logged in and logged out).
Also, why does the protection infobox contain the phrase "...for the page $1" (Wikimarkup '''''<nowiki>$1</nowiki>''''')? It has been that way since the page was created in 2007. Are the nowiki tags an error?
Still no notice at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Protect-text - The notice is there if you loojk at the source, but it is not displayed. Guy Macon ( talk) 19:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
(Please use Wikipedia:WikiProject Time, not local time.)
The goal is to reach zero by Friday, 20 May 2011
Articles with level 1 pending changes
Articles with level 2 pending changes
Test Pages (no need to change these)
Count as of 03:00 on Monday 16 May 2011: Level 1 = 348 . Level 2 = 54 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Count as of 01:45 on Wednesday 18 May 2011: Level 1 = 275 . Level 2 = 49 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Count as of 06:56 on Saturday 21 May 2011: Level 1 = 226 . Level 2 = 33 -- Guy Macon Guy Macon ( talk) 07:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Count as of 17:45 on Saturday 21 May 2011: Level 1 = 143 . Level 2 = 34 -- Guy Macon Guy Macon ( talk) 17:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Moving count to end of talk page. It was an error on my part making an editorial comment rather than simply reporting progress. Sorry about that. Guy Macon ( talk) 08:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
(Comments deleted because multiple editors do not think the statement was justified) Guy Macon ( talk) 07:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem with implementing this is that it requires admins to do work, and work requires time; I'm pretty sure most admins would rather spend their time doing something else, like editing articles, or doing IRL stuff that needs to be done. It'll be done, but be patient. Hint: going "OMGWTFBBQ WHY ISN'T THIS DONE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!" doesn't motivate admins to do this massive task. -- Rs chen 7754 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
http://toolserver.org/~chzz/pc.php
That is, select count(*) from flaggedpages join page where page_id = fp_page_id and page_namespace = 0 ;
...which is, articles only, how many have PC, now
Hope that helps. Chzz ► 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
First off, my sincere apologies for not having gotten these comments posted a few days ago as I had hoped. For various reasons that will not be of general interest, I have had limited wiki-time this week.
I have carefully reviewed the input on this page since my closing two weeks ago. My initial reaction is that I am concerned by the limited amount of input that has been received. It appears that the closing and my request for follow-up attention by administrators and for follow-up input on a specific, narrow question has, due to no fault of anyone in particular, received far too little attention using our internal publicity mechanisms. This situation should be corrected.
Despite this problem, it appears that administrators have been giving attention to articles that have been part of the pending changes (PC) trial, including deciding whether to use semiprotection in lieu of PC. However, there are still a couple of hundred articles under PC so this job obviously has not yet been fully completed. In light of the lack of publicity and the need for administrators to give careful attention to this task, I think it is best that we allow PC status on any articles within the PC trial that have not yet been carefully reviewed by an administrator, to remain in place for 7 additional days. In other words, the "deadline" for termination of the PC trial (except as otherwise specified), which had been today, is extended for 7 days. I acknowledge that in light of the 2-to-1 result of the RfC, even this limited extension may be near the limit of what can be considered consistent with consensus. Therefore, except as described below, I do not anticipate any further extensions.
In my closing, I specifically asked for comments on the following specific question: Given that there is a numerical consensus to discontinue the current pending-changes trial, should any exceptions be made for articles with a history of extreme problems that cannot be solved by other means? I thank the editors who have commented on this issue, although as noted I regret that there weren't more comments.
I understand the input I have received to the effect that it is desirable to draw a clear line separating the completed PC trial from any future implementation of PC, flagged revisions, or any similar system. Terminating the PC trial as to the vast majority of the articles that were under PC is consistent with the consensus. I remain seriously concerned, however, that for a small number of biographies of living persons, turning off PC without a reasonable substitute would be an irresponsible thing for the project to do.
Specifically, I refer to the subset of BLP articles in which there has been a serious problem of persistent vandalism, defamation, harassment of the article subject, or the like. Contrary to the views of some of our critics, I do not believe the number of such articles is a major fraction of our overall number of BLPs. But it is not a trivial problem either, by a long shot, and there have been instances of serious BLP problems even within the past couple of weeks.
I do not believe that the majority consensus in this RfC would necessarily oppose allowing PC to remain, for the interim period until we make a final decision here, on this limited subset of BLP articles. For some of them, there seems to be no good alternative to leaving PC intact: semiprotecting does not protect against defamation of article subjects by determined enemies or harassers who register sleeper socks and take the trouble to get autoconfirmed; and full protection would be an overreaction (and if instituted faute de mieux in the absence of PC, would be a far more drastic limitation on the ability to edit than PC is; I do not understand any argument that full-protection of an article is a better state for it to be in than pending-changes).
Therefore, my current inclination is to allow a limited exception to the termination of the PC trial, for the interim period (defined as the period in which the longer-term status of PC/FR is under discussion, up to 90 days), in which an administrator would be permitted to apply PC status to an article provided that:
If this exception is allowed during the interim period (which I've defined as lasting no more than about 90 days), like the termination of the PC trial in all other respects, it will be entirely without prejudice to the ultimate fate of PC/FR as decided in the future. It also would be meant to apply to a reasonably limited number of articles; it is not meant to be an exception that would swallow the rule.
Comments on this proposal will be appreciated, within the next 7 days. With the possible exception outlined above, the PC trial should be considered in its final stages of winding down, with a deadline of 7 days from today.
I also indicated in my closing that I would provide some suggestions for discussion of the next phase of PC/FR.
I think that some prior discussions and attempts to gauge consensus have foundered because the community was trying to discuss too many issues at the same time, and because the continuum of options was not broken out well enough to gauge support for each.
Basically, I think there are three separate—although of course related—discussions to be had.
(1) The discussion of whether we want to have PC/FR at all. I think that any RfC or poll needs to be broken down within the following continuum of options:
I think an RfC page presenting these options, perhaps with some tweaking of the wording or categories, could help bring us closer to knowing what consensus is, or indeed whether there is any hope of consensus being achieved at all. (I am not addressing here the "meta" question of what we should do if community opinion remains widely scattered among these options and we don't have any decision at all; suffice unto the day....) My suggestion is that an RfC among these options be set up to begin about 10 days from now, be widely publicized, and remain open for 45 days to obtain as broad in put as possible. We could then follow with a phase that would yield a specific final outcome within the selected option.
(2) The technical discussion. Features of PC/FR, how it should work, issues concerning the interface, and the like. I'm not an expert on these issues, so will defer in suggesting how this RfC page might best be set up in favor of those who are. I think this phase of an RfC could proceed in parallel with (1) and on more-or-less the same timetable.
(3) The personnel and operational issues. E.g., how we should select reviewers, what the criteria should be for accepting or rejecting edits, etc. This phase of the discussion, I think, would need to follow (1) and (2).
Comments on how the next phase of PC/FR input should proceed, including on my suggested methodology for RfCs as set forth just above, are also invited, within the next 7 days.
I hope these comments and suggestions are helpful. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe a large reason that not many people have commented thus far is because everyone is entirely burnt out. There has been continuous discussion on this matter for a full year, not counting the myriad of discussions we had before that. Might I suggest that any long-term discussion be postponed for more than 90 days (maybe more like 6-12 months)? NW ( Talk) 00:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm so utterly frustrated; this is a travesty, a total failure to adhere to core principles regarding consensus.
I do not accept this closure.
This is now beyond ludicrous.
Another seven days? On and on this goes, with no consensus for using PC. A two-month trial; the ending ignored. "Drop-dead date" - ignored. THIS closure, a 2 week deadline (Fri 20th) - ignored. Clear consensus to end the farce - apparently, ignored.
What on Earth gives you, NYBrad, the authority to override consensus, to judge that the community wants to allow exceptions?
If you (NY Brad) think that PC should be used on certain articles, you must propose it and get agreement - just like anyone else should.
I am very concerned that the events here have done massive damage to all our faith in consensus, in due process through community discussion. I hope the damage is not irreparable, but I will find it extremely difficult to believe in the process of consensus any more.
The proposal you assessed clearly, unequivocally, found in favour of ending the trial. There was no talk of exclusions. I'm annoyed. Chzz ► 02:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's put away the pitchforks, folks, and the conspiracy theories (without evidence, that is—if off-wiki pressure is being applied, someone with knowledge of it really should blow the whistle). I firmly believe, NYB, that you are acting with the best interests of the project at heart, but I think your decision here is faulty. It amounts to setting aside consensus in favor of expediency, and that—intentions notwithstanding—is unlikely to do the project any good. Consensus (or at least the striving to attain it) is at the very heart of everything that's meaningful about Wikipedia: its content, policies, procedures, and the possibilities it holds for remaining viable as an online community of people with certain objectives in common. If we cannot trust that consensus will be respected, what are we left with?
I'm not sure why you think the response to your closure was disappointing. Those who could still be bothered to pay attention and wished to respond did respond. My impression, based on the PC-removal activity I kept stumbling across all week, was simply that many more people were aware of the closure than cared to comment. In my comments I mused about how to determine the appropriate protection level for the non-trial articles, and I expressed the view that dealing with those articles separately (i.e., later) might not be unreasonable. I still think so—although I'd add the caveats that "later" must be very soon and that we must have consensus for it. At the moment, consensus appears to be running strongly against any such thing.
In any event, pushing the deadline back another week across the board (not just for the non-trial articles) seems like pointless procrastination. It contradicts the very clear timeframe you outlined for the trial articles in your first closure, and it appears to do so without any fresh justification. I think that's disappointing. Rivertorch ( talk) 09:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
--
Tryptofish (
talk)
14:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The endless, impotent whingeing about "there's no consensus—there's no consensus—there's no consensus" is irritating. Folks, let me point out that the truest definition of "consensus" on Wikipedia is what we do. And if every single one of our admins has, through inaction, actually refused to remove PC from a given article, then the fact is that we don't have a consensus to remove PC from that article.
This is not news. This is the system we use everywhere. Want an article to be deleted? If zero individual admins are willing to delete it, then in practice, then consensus is that the article should be kept. Want a user unblocked? If zero individual admins are willing to unblock the account then in practice, then consensus is that the user is de facto banned. Want an article under semi-protection? If zero individual admins are willing to protect it, then in practice, then consensus is that the article's current settings are what we're going to have.
We have some 750 active admins at any given point in time. If you can't find one admin out of those hundreds who is willing to change the settings, then you effectively have 750 !votes in favor of keeping PC on whichever articles are still under PC—and that's a true, impregnable consensus on the English Wikipedia.
(As a practical matter: if you believe the consensus is to remove PC from these last few articles, then I suggest that you spend your time figuring out which of your friends are admins and asking them personally to take responsibility for the changes. The finger-pointing and whingeing on this page will never get the job done.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, I don't find your suggestion about exceptions acceptable, as I don't believe it is at all supported by consensus on the proposal page. Could you please provide some diffs illustrating that of the people supporting the proposal, a very significant fraction were only supporting conditional on PC remaining for certain BLPs? I'm sure you understand how divisive and draining a new month-long "remove PC from all articles and this time we mean all" RFC would be.
I understand that the situation regarding PC has become very complicated, with no easy answers moving forward. On the one hand we have a powerful tool for protecting BLPs, which many editors believe is significantly more useful than semi- and full protection and will only become more so as remaining points of contention, such as ease of use and process for selecting reviewers, are ironed out. On the other hand, due to what I can only describe as breathtaking myopia, PC was introduced and kept in place in a way many perceive as running roughshod over the wishes of the larger community; from reading the comments on the main RFC page you can see that a bitter taste has been left in the mouths of many editors, who now irrationally oppose PC out of principle. That the well has been thus poisoned is extremely regrettable, and could have been avoided if only the introduction of PC had been handled with more finesse and less haste.
Let's not repeat that mistake today. A completely neutral interpretation of the "landslide" consensus that emerged at this RFC is exactly what we need in order to start clean, to discuss the future role of PC on Wikipedia without the emotional baggage that has accrued during the trial. Putting PC on certain BLPs may very well be the best solution at our disposal for those pages... but let's come to that conclusion as a community, through consensus, rather than by administrator fiat, in defiance of consensus. A few dozen fully-protected BLPs will not kill Wikipedia. On the other hand, the perception that we can no longer make decisions collaboratively, that overwhelming consensus is no longer binding on administrators who dislike the outcome... the harm there is incalculable. Wikipedia cannot succeed once its contributors refuse to work cooperatively. TotientDragooned ( talk) 03:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Issues:
We have the unfortunate situation now of an admin, Kww, being blocked by Scott MacDonald for removing PC from BLPs. There is a discussion on AN/I. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 17:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
And to think I thought Off2riorob and myself were staunch supporters of PC, and now we have documented an admin. blatantly refusing to allow its removal - this takes the cake. Articles like the ones he mentioned are exactly why I vouched to keep PC on limited articles thus lowering its scope since the trial is ended. However, I still agree that it's more important to follow consensus. I slightly disagree with it, but I can't fight it. CycloneGU ( talk) 04:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Pending protection is now removed from all articles as per the consensus -
Off2riorob (
talk)
15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
|
---|
This is a count of how many articles are still using Pending Changes. (Please use Wikipedia:WikiProject Time, not local time.) The goal was to reach zero by Friday, 20 May 2011 Articles with level 1 pending changes Articles with level 2 pending changes Test Pages (no need to change these) Count as of 03:00 on Monday 16 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 348 , Level 2 = 54 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 01:45 on Wednesday 18 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 275 , Level 2 = 49 . -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 06:56 on Saturday 21 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 226 , Level 2 = 33 . -- Guy Macon Guy Macon ( talk) 07:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 17:45 on Saturday 21 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 143 , Level 2 = 34 . -- Guy Macon Guy Macon ( talk) 17:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 08:03 on Sunday 22 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 128 , Level 2 = 32 . -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 18:08 on Sunday 22 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 125 , Level 2 = 30 . -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 05:30 on Monday 23 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 99 , Level 2 = 9 . -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Count as of 15:45 on Monday 23 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 0 , Level 2 = 0 . -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC) |
By a vote of 9-0, a majority of the Arbitration has voted to pass a preliminary injunction. Arbitration policy states that "injunctions are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes". In the event that there is insufficient agreement among the Committee to open the case, clarification should be requested from the Arbitration Committee on how to proceed.
The injunction was proposed and passed after User:Scott MacDonald brought a case to the Committee regarding the implementation of the shutdown of pending changes. At the time of the passage of this injunction, the case request is currently pending before the Committee. The injunction is the following:
Any administrator who removes pending changes protection from any article flagged as a biography of a living person shall replace level 1 pending changes with semi-protection of an equivalent duration and replace level 2 pending changes with full protection of an equivalent duration. This measure shall be effective immediately, and administrators who have recently removed pending changes from biographies of living persons articles are expected to assure that these protection levels are applied to articles from which pending changes protection has been removed.
For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (
Talk)
15:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As noted by a few arbs, this does not prevent admins from subsequently, even the same admin immediately after, consider in their own appreciation which level of protection is needed, with all due regards to the specifics of the article and in accordance with WP:PP. The reason arbcom doesn't mention this yet acknowledges it unofficially is because they want to appear tough on BLP issues. Cenarium ( talk) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Having reviewed the input since Friday night carefully (I've been travelling with limited wiki access over the weekend), please note the following:
1. Excessive rhetoric is unhelpful in any discussion on Wikipedia. Some of the comments posted since Friday evening were excessively strident and unwarranted.
2. Any implication that either my original closing or my additions to it on Friday were affected by lobbying by Jimbo Wales, the Foundation, or other arbitrators, is completely unfounded. There has been no such lobbying of any kind. In addition, my closure here has nothing to do with my arbitration responsibilities, and I've recused myself as an arbitrator in the related arbitration case (including on the vote on the injunction).
3. Given that the task of carefully evaluating the articles that were still under PC as of Friday had obviously not been completed, I see nothing controversial in my extending the deadline by a week. The alternative would have been simply to remove the PC on all the remaining articles by pressing a button, without considering whether anything was necessary to replace it, which would have been irresponsible.
4. It appears that administrators are now in the final phase of reviewing the remaining articles under PC and evaluating whether no protection, semiprotection, or (hopefully in rare cases) full protection is appropriate for each. I trust that this can be completed by this coming Friday so that we don't face the gnashing of teeth that would accompany extending the deadline again. The ArbCom injunction (which as noted I did not vote on or for) may also help draw some attention to the need to wrap this up.
5. I am keenly aware that in the two weeks of input on the original closure, no one came to this page suggesting a specific BLP on which continued protection might have been warranted. To a large extent, this may reflect consensus that the current version of PC is not a good solution to BLP issues, but I was concerned that to a certain extent it might also reflect that the RfC closure and my request for additional input was underpublicized. I am also concerned that the latter situation still has not been addressed (although I do not anticipate using this as a basis for extending the deadline another time).
6. On the other hand, at least one of our administrators with an enormous amount of experience in dealing with sensitive BLP issues opined on his talkpage that there indeed are serially vandalized BLP articles on which PC should continue to be used, and where neither semiprotection nor full protection would do as well (see, User talk:Scott MacDonald#Dustin Diamond). To my dismay, this admin opined that my closure discussion was too long to read, and he declined to come to this page to present his opinion, which therefore was not responded to by others who have strongly opposing views. I did not, however, think it made sense simply to ignore it.
7. "BLP" is not a catchphrase that, by intoning it, automatically supersedes all our policies, norms, and community decision-making. On the other hand, the group of issues that we collectively categorize as "BLP" go beyond the internal dynamics and politics of our project, because the contents of these articles can have profound impacts on the articles subjects. In my comments on Friday night, I did not purport to impose a new "PC for BLPs" policy by fiat; I asked whether there might be consensus for a narrow exception to the existing consensus to end the PC trial that my original closure had recognized. At the moment, it certainly appears that the answer will probably be no, but I make absolutely no apology for asking the question.
8. On the merits of the issue, I gather the reason there is strong opposition to even a limited BLP exception to ending the trial (other than repeated chants of "the trial is over! the trial is over!") is fear that it would be overutilized. I agree that it would not be in order, under any form of exception, to routinely substitute PC for semiprotection. On the other hand, there still seem to be people who think that it would be better for a handful of articles to be full-protected than for them to be on a PC status. If that is consensus, so be it, but it still strikes me as odd and I would still welcome someone's explaining it.
9. Regarding where the discussion goes from here, I'd still welcome thoughts on whether my outline for the next wave of RfCs is helpful or not, or what might do better. I also note NuclearWarfare's suggestion that we take a break before the next round of discussion; but others seem to be saying the opposite, so we need some more views on this.
I hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | Raw data from phase two available
here. |
In the period since the trial has begun, we have had surveys that have demonstrated repeated and frequent complaints from new editors that even the present English Wikipedia is too difficult to figure out when getting started. see WT:Wiki Guides/What was your new user experience (note, link fixed by Chzz 08:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)). this makes it even clearer than it was several months ago that -- since a priority is getting & keeping new users--this system is unacceptable as adding yet further complication. The proper course is to stop further work in development of this system, and end the trial, ending any attempt to continue it, to retain articles in it, or to work on modifying it. It would still remain necessary to analyze it, but if analysis of the trial shows that it was nonetheless helpful on article quality, then we can try to invent some other way to accomplish that goal. I did not previously feel so strongly negative about it, but this and similar surveys have convinced me. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The idea of a 'protected page' is quite intuitive. "Sorry, you can't edit this, it is protected" - easy. Semi adds a slight twist to that, but even so, saying "Sorry, new users cannot edit this" is pretty clear. But pending changes is not. If the user edits the page, they see their change (plus the unreviewed notice) but, if they move away from the page, and then go back to it, their change is "gone" (if not reviewed"). Then, if they click "edit", the change is back in there. This issue has been discussed previously; please look in the archive of this page and the project page - I know, they're long and messy - we could do with summarizing the content. Chzz ► 08:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope this isn't too early to think about the next phase. I quite like the ideas laid out by at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 2#Issues to be resolved but there are also some things worth considering on the first attempt at a phase 3.
I guess there are two things for us to discuss here.
Yaris678 ( talk) 14:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
PC has been on for quite a long time, and I haven't seen any real statistics anywhere, not counting the few pages linked to from Wikipedia:Pending changes/Metrics. Surely there were some articles with PC being applied for random durations in large enough tests to get some real statistics, without being distorted by people turning on/off PC because it's helpful/unhelpful at the moment? How much the editing frequencies rose compared to semi-protection, how much it drops compared to unprotected, how often users whose first edits were to a PC article will make future edits in comparison to if their first edit was to a statistically identical article not under PC, etc? Could someone provide some links? -- Yair rand ( talk) 03:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Feb 1 to date - looking at Alaska as representative (well, first) on the list: 16 IP edit sequences were rejected by reviewers, and 2 were accepted (pretty abysmal quality rate on the IP edits?), ClueBot only caught 8, and caught 1 registered editor for a bad edit. The article is open to IPs, and the bad edits were pretty much all by IPs, and a large majority were caught by Pending Changes. Then Britney Spears, first BLP on the list: No IP edits, and cluebot caught zero improper registered user edits. 9 edit sequences were rejected by reviewers (one initially accepted, then rejected by another reviewer). This shows a significant benefit is just over one month on a specific BLP. Then John Diefenbaker which should be representative of a rarely edited BLP. 4 rejected IP edits. Zero IP edits accepted. Zero IP edits caught by Bot. Even on a slow page, the use of Pending Changes is shown to prevent "interesting edits" from being made public, and more efficiently than the current bots can do it. And, amazingly enough, reaching statistical significance extremely quickly. Collect ( talk) 11:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, so let's have a look at the first of those, more thoroughly;
Edits, from that point onwards;
User | Date | Diff | Comment |
---|---|---|---|
21:29, 1 December 2010 | 86.145.67.137 | [4] | Plain Vandalism |
Reverted by Cluebot [5] | |||
17:00, 2 December 2010 | 204.39.176.72 | [6] | Plain vandalism |
Reverted by confirmed user [7] | |||
13:15, 3 December 2010 | 209.204.81.151 | [8] | Plain vandalism |
Reverted by confirmed user [9] | |||
20:53, 3 December 2010 | 216.67.81.116 | [10] | Subtle vandalism? Date change, no ref |
Reverted by confirmed user [11] | |||
---31 edits by registered users, all auto-accepted--- | |||
07:29, 5 December 2010 | 76.218.207.39 | [12] | Anon grammar fix (it's) |
Accepted | |||
---5 edits by registered users, all auto-accepted--- | |||
19:12, 5 December 2010 | 75.106.117.180 | [13] | Plain vandalism |
Reverted by Cluebot [14] | |||
---2 edits by registered user, auto-accepted--- | |||
21:38, 5 December 2010 | 99.242.122.15 | [15] | Unref'd change to a number |
Reverted by registered user [16] |
Net effect of PC (compared to semi): One anon added an apostrophe. They have made no other edits. And how much time was wasted in 'reviewing'? Hard to tell. We did stop "Hello Mum" etc. appearing for a few seconds on the article.
If someone wants to go on with this type of analysis, it might be useful.
Chzz ► 15:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Freddie Mercury has had PC for all of 2 days - in prior 2 days, more than a dozen iffy edits - 2 IP edits rejected now due to PC. Long time IP problem area - solved by PC. One more sample showing that PC works. Collect ( talk) 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you know, there is a list at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Metrics/Anonymous edit quality where some edit analysis is made. This shows examples where PC 'doesn't work', such as Ann Coulter, and examples where PC 'works', such as The Mighty B!, Forrest J Ackerman , the latter being a good example of PC being helpful to test if protection is still needed (a RFC view mentioned this). Cenarium ( talk) 17:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you have to compare the vandalism rate with no protection vs vandalism attempts under PC. Just examining the vandal edits submitted under PC ignores all the times where PC caused the vandal to not even bother to try. 69.111.194.167 ( talk) 16:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
In the event that PC is ultimately removed from all articles by consensus, I would support still allowing PC-2 together with semiprotection on the few articles where the only alternative is full protection. This would make Wikipedia more open, since autoconfirmed accounts would be able to edit, rather than everybody having to use {{
editprotected}}
.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
12:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Discussion of long-term PC issue moved here from Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011#Comparing_to_semi-protection_and_robbing_momentum. — UncleDouggie ( talk) 09:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
SirFozzie, you compare PC to semi protection, and say that since, in your opinion, it's "better" (in that it is less restrictive), we should keep on using it. However, this only applies if we never apply PC except from in case where we would also be happy to apply semi-protection. Do you agree that we should only ever use PC in these cases? If not then surely it is irrelevant to compare PC to semi-protection? See also: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 2#PC is not an alternative to semi-protection. Also, isn't the "momentum" PC has a headlong rush without actually stopping to see what's happening and properly consider the implications that continued use of PC has for the future of the project? Do you think this is a good way to implement a new feature? Personally I feel it's got a little bit too much "momentum", and stopping to catch a breath and think this through a little bit would be a good idea. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 08:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. It was that way when you got here, so it's ancient history and okay, maybe even a good thing! I'm sure antebellum Southern plantation owners felt the same about their peculiar institution. So if vandals and IPs worry you so much you should be advocating for universal semi-protection since you don’t trust your fellow editors to review the edits… as we've always done (that's what one's watchlist is for, no?). What I see in PC is a tool with the potential to make Wikipedia more truly an "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" than it has been in many years! You speak of "wielding nightsticks", yet I note that you retained your "rollbacker" right. Rollback is much more of a stick, with its abrupt nature and uneditable edit summary, than is PC with the glorified "undo" button that is its "reject" button. I really think you need to examine your motivations here, because they seem contradictory to me. In the meantime, please go to Special:AdvancedReviewLog and get some real-world, current data instead of relying on outlier examples and speculation. — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 03:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that PC will be removed from articles as the current state of discussion suggests, as commented above we need to consider the next phase. I suggest that we start the elaboration of a compromise proposal, either for a new trial, or an implementation of indefinite duration, maybe with mandatory reconsideration, with a fully fledged use policy. This can be done concurrently with a questionnaire with questions on specific policy issues. The proposed policy should be based on this RFC and other feedback such as the questionnaire if done. It should then be proposed to the community. If it doesn't gain consensus, we modify it in light of the new feedback and can propose a new one. As I've said already, I do not think it is possible to offer multiple proposals at a same time, because it's extremely difficult to discern consensus in such cases. I would also like that we do not rush, so as to avoid making the community tired of discussing PC. The basis for the policy already exists, at WP:PC, and the basis for a reviewing guideline exists at WP:RG, we can start from there. Cenarium ( talk) 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, you seem to be advocating a jury, looking at the discussions, and writing a "guide" - what is that? A policy on how PC can be used? There is absolutely no way such a policy would be accepted without consensus. If the jury attempts to put forth a page saying "This is how we're using PC for now; we'll work out the details later" - then it'll be rightly lambasted. It simply will not work. Nobody can magnanimously decide how PC will be used - no matter how carefully they analyse the discussions. And if, instead, the jury comes out with a proposal - then it'll require discussion. And yes, the discussion would be long, and complicated - with counter-proposals. And rightly so.
I'm amazed at your "I told you so" comment [21] on the current proposal. Nobody has "forced aside" anything - it's simply that quite a few people don't think it is the best way forward.
There was a consensus for the current proposal - even you, Beeblebrox, seemed to accept there was "general agreement" for the "side RfC" (as you called it). Personally, I'd like to have seen a little bit more discussion before it actually became a live proposal - but, I don't think there were many objections to it.
Whereas...for this "questionnnaire" - I am still not seeing a "general agreement". I'm seeing lots of people saying "whoa there, are you sure this is a great idea?".
I'm concerned that Beeblebrox wrote, The idea behind that process is to gather input rather having a dogfight between positions, - hold on; isn't an RfC supposed to be about discussion? ...and to use that input to construct a rough guide - so you think PC would be used in accordance to some "rough guide", without policy?
If you go ahead with the questionnaire, I wish you the very best of luck - but it is against my advisement. And I reserve the right to leave a message, two or three months down the line - if it hasn't achieved anything - saying, "I told you so". Chzz ► 15:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
So, a question's been tickling the back of my mind. I think a comment above brought it to the fore, namely about how discussions have resulted in a hopeless, tangled, and inconclusive mess.
We've got a name for that kind of a result. It's called "no consensus". I don't think continually rephrasing and reformatting the question is going to come to a different outcome, nor do I think that asking the question over and over is really an appropriate way to do so. If we're not seeing a clear consensus to make a major structural change (and PC is a very significant change), that change does not have the requisite support to be made. Just like any other policy change proposal which does not achieve a consensus, the proposal fails.
We require clear, unambiguous consensus to make far less drastic policy changes than this one. If over several months of trying, this effort at a change proposal has not received a clear and unambiguous consensus, it is a failed proposal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Post by Yaris678 moved to #Ideas for what happens next. Yaris678 ( talk) 00:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
(To Seraphimblade) Are you kidding ? There has not been a single proposal put forward since the end of the trial, not one. So how could the proposal "have failed" ? Cenarium ( talk) 23:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with some of what Seraphimblade is saying. We have an inconclusive mess and very little consensus.
However, I don't think we should drop the whole idea yet. A lot of people want to use Pending Changes in some form. I think if we tried to work out now some kind of policy towards PC we would reach no consensus, again. I think we should try something. I have two ideas of what that something could be.
Yaris678 ( talk) 21:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Yaris, thanks for mentioning that TED talk - fascinating. I was particularly interested to hear about H. R. McMaster - it's a pity our article doesn't do him justice.
I agree regarding the need for "field testing" - however, disagree with the idea of selecting a project group.
PC can be used in so many different ways - and its effects are different, in differing circumstances. By limiting the remit to a specific proj, we'd only see one type of use (for wont of a better term).
I do think that some form of carefully controlled, specific trial, with measurable objectives - all defined and agreed before it starts - would be the way ahead. But I think that forming an appropriate proposal for such a trial is a very complex task - which is why I think we'd need a "bunch of people" (committee, jury, team...whatever you want to call it) to thoroughly analyse the mass of discussion re. PC, and attempt to formulate a specific, clear proposal which they believe could obtain consensus. This is again, in essence, what I suggested some weeks ago here.
I am convinced that, one way or another, that is the only way that progress can be made. I'm also convinced that it won't happen until the trial is finally closed down - because I don't think it will be possible to get any true consensus until that happens.
I'm convinced that that is what will happen - maybe soon, if consensus for the current proposal is clear. Maybe later, after more months of lengthy discussions.
I also believe that asking users to complete questionnaires will not help in any significant way. I'm concerned that it is being suggested without any clear idea about how it could possibly be evaluated. We've seen brief mentions of some jury-like process, but nothing in any detail. Collecting huge amounts of data without first working out what you'll do with it, does not seem likely to be productive, to me.
In addition, the questionnaire idea goes against the idea of permitting discussion and consensus. If a bunch of (tens or hundreds of) users produce their own view, their own notion - without being able to discuss it and look for common ground - I fear that will not help. Chzz ► 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, I like this idea. I think that maybe it will be possible to come up with some kind of synthesis of all these ideas. But firstly, judging by the response, I am not sure my essay idea has been understood. Although it is inspired by the questionnaire idea is different. The sort of things I am hoping we will get are:
And we may get some more polemic ones, but that is OK, up to a point. At least an essay will allow people to explain why they are massively for or against, in a way that is clearer than your average talk-page rant.
We could have some kind of central page, perhaps where the essays are categorised. This could help people get an overview of the opinions on PC and form a good basis for a discussion about what we should actually do. I would also encourage people to help each other out with their essays, although the user concerned would have the final say over any contentious edits.
And people will of course go back and refine their ideas as they think about them or in response to comments. This will hopefully keep the ideas easy to understand and prevent the WP:TL;DR problem that you get with a long discussion. The WP:TL;DR problem prevents people from coming in half way though because they would have to read a mass of discussion... but if we have essays setting out neatly what the current thoughts are then it should help.
Secondly, I think the difficulty with getting any future trial up and running will be agreeing on the policies to be followed during the trial. I think my WikiProject-based trial idea gets round that by reducing the number of people that have to agree. Your idea is similar in that it would ask for about 12 people to look at the discussion and come up with a proposed trial with some new policies to go with it... but everyone would have their opinion on that proposal and it would be hard to get going. But if only the people in the WikiProject had to agree it would be a lot easier.
I can see your point about a WikiProject-based trial only looking at one type of article. But I think that it its strength. That makes it easier to reach a consensus. Obviously the consensus would only be temporary. We’d then have to look at other types of article. But it would be a start.
I'm not saying my ideas are right and your ideas are wrong. I am just trying to be clear about why I thought my ideas are good. That way, as I say, we might be able to come up with some kind of synthesis that takes the best from each.
Yaris678 ( talk) 16:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Two thoughts:
My opinion is that a second trial is definitely going to be necessary before full adoption of pending changes is decided upon. The problem with the first trial is that nobody defined good trial criteria or metrics prior to starting it up; the result is that almost all arguments related to that trial are either anecdotal or emotional, with little actual data being discussed. – Grondemar 21:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
To clarify. My idea is not that people write essays that are intended to become policy. Some of the essays will argue for a certain policy, but they will do more than state that policy. They will look at the evidence and explain why that policy would work. Other essays will not be directly related to policy (as the word is understood on Wikipedia). You might get an essay saying "If we try to resolve our differences in this order it is more likely to reach consensus". You might get an essay that says "It all makes a lot more sense if you look at it like this".
I guess you could see this essay by me as an example of the sort of thing that you might get. It isn't about PC... but it lays out the background and analysis before making some very tentative suggestions. Doing it this way means that it is open for someone to come along and say "I agree with your analysis, but I think a better way of dealing with the issues identified is..."
I agree that the word "competition" is perhaps not the best one (it was the word that came to hand at the time). The idea is not necessarily that we will pick one or two winners and everyone else is a loser. The idea is that we all develop our ideas in a clear and well-argued way. I guess there is the possibility that someone will write an essay that goes down in history as the great solution to the PC issue. If that happens then the fame for the author will be a prize of sorts. But we don't have to bank on that happening... the essays may just be one step towards resolving the issues.
In terms of deadlines... potentially it could be a very long-term project. Perhaps it would be good to have some kind of initial deadline. Say... after 2 months we will look at what essays we have and look at where we want to go. Maybe we will implement the suggestions of some. Maybe we will decide that some need to be developed more or that the ideas of some can be brought together.
Yaris678 ( talk) 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the only way forward is the elaboration of a single proposal, based on the views expressed in the RFC. Contradictory debate should not occur between different proposals, but within the proposal itself, and resolved through compromise. When it's considered ready, we submit it to the larger community. Cenarium ( talk) 12:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I really like the idea expressed above.
“ | give the draft policy to 20 users and have them each review the same set of 50 randomly selected changes chosen from the types of articles and users that would be eligible for PC under the policy. Check how well their reviews agree with each other and collect feedback on where they felt the policy provided inadequate guidance. | ” |
— UncleDouggie, 04:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
I wouldn't describe it as a thought experiment, as UncleDouggie did. It is an actual experiment. I guess I might call it an off-line experiment in that we are not experimenting directly with Wikipedia.
Anyway, the point is that it would give us insight into what reviewers have to deal with in practice and where differences of opinion might have a practical effect. It should get to the bottom of " The duties of the reviewer are unclear", which I believe is the most fundamental issue facing Pending Changes.
Let's do it!
Yaris678 ( talk) 18:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Toward the end of the interim poll, I came in late with this comment. Because it was late there never was feedback. Chzz and I had a private discussion which left us in disagreement. I still maintain this position. Furthermore, I went to consider a semi-protected edit request which had been done upon my arrival. I was however reminded of my earlier comment and the fact it has not been vetted. Review this new users comments and consider if in fact this is a valuable consideration. My76Strat ( talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Would someone familiar with making a wiki book consider consolidating all of the relevant conversations, from the beginning, into such a book? Then it would be possible to review the entire conversation if one was so inclined. My76Strat ( talk) 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know, officially this is not a vote, but after casting you 'opinion' many many times about yet another aspect, I and I know many others are getting really tired of this prolonged discussion to achieve community consensus. For those done with the discussion, I have created a user page where you can cast you final opinion now and be done with it. The page is found here (removed page, the opposers will continue to misrepresent the will of theity till they win)]], and once the discussion of the final proposal gets to a final round of consensus forming, those opinions will be added to the tally at that time. There are only two opinions you can agree with: Implementation versus rejection. If you want a detailed say, don't use this option. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I can understand the sentiment. It's exactly two years since the original trial proposal has been approved. And debate has been occurring over and over since (and already long before). As I've noted above, now that the issue of the current status of the implementation is about to be resolved, which was the main reason for wanting to address the matter urgently, we'll be able to move forward on the elaboration of a proposal in a calmer and more 'consensual' manner. We won't have to make another big consultation of the community on this until the proposal is ready, which will provide a break. Cenarium ( talk) 22:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I realize the way forward is not clear yet. So I wish to propose a motion, to be handled in the same way as the current motion proposing removal of PC. I know some users may have fundamentally different ideas on how to proceed, but the way I suggest is how the trial itself went into being, while we were in a same confused situation at the time, so we now it can work. I think this addresses two absolutely essential issues: the need to have a proposed policy on the use of PC in any proposed implementation, and the fact that when multiple proposals or when multiple options are presented to the community in controversial matters, it is extremely difficult to determine consensus, and results are often heavily contested (as seen e.g. in the poll that followed the trial), while a binary question (do you approve or not ?) is simple and non-ambiguous.
It is as such:
Now that the issue of the current use of pending changes has been resolved, it is possible to move forward on addressing the question of future use of pending changes. The following framework is proposed:
Please indicate support or oppose with brief reasoning in the
comments section. Comments longer than 1000 characters, responses to the comments of others and general discussion of the topic should go in the
discussion section.(Unneeded to make a formal proposal if we reach an agreement here.)
Cenarium ( talk) 00:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to figuring out those types of policies ("where and how much to use it" for instance), but he may have a point that we need to simplify what we have, thereby creating a basic skeleton for the system. So, let's start with trying to simplify everything, then try to expand. Then we look for support or opposal. Thoughts? CycloneGU ( talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)"I would wonder if the 'PC is confusing' meant the policy, the software itself. Probably both. Anyway, if it does get kept in the long run, then the policy about where and how much to use it might change drastically, so I wouldn't want you to expend a lot of energy reworking the policy only to have your work be meaningless. So I think the best thing to do for now would be to simplify the existing policies as much as humanly possible, while leaving them to fit the current set of use cases as the trial laid out. Make sense?"
So are we thinking that Wikipedia:Pending changes/Draft proposal should contain everything that will go into WP:PC, WP:RG and the PC-related bits of WP:PROTECT the protection policy? That would probably be easier to coordinate, during the drafting stage, than modifying those pages directly. To a certain extent that is just a detail. I think the motion is pretty-much ready to go now. I think the motion will provide clarity on what we are trying to do. We can always look again at the other options if:
Yaris678 ( talk) 09:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be a train wreck to put this out as the next phase of the RfC. The second bullet has three options, which people will try to vote on. The last two lines discuss a future proposal, but everyone will read it as this proposal and mass confusion will ensue. Why is this controversial? Which of the ideas represented on this page would it not permit within it's framework? Certainly we would need to work through the issues list in my proposal somehow to draft the policy. I assume that since Beeblebrox has left the building, there isn't much, if any, support for the questionnaire or "go for broke". What else is at issue? — UncleDouggie ( talk) 10:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's a new version, I hope this is clearer:
Now that the issue of the current use of pending changes has been resolved, it is possible to move forward on addressing the key question of future use of pending changes. A compromise proposal will be elaborated then submitted to the community; the following framework will be respected:
Feel free to edit provided you don't substantially change the meaning. Cenarium ( talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
tl;dr all of this, only most. Even the revised proposal is confusing as hell. The people "voting " on the front side of this page were confused about what "support" and "oppose" meant in the context of that proposal. I can only barely grasp what you're saying here, cenarium. I agree with the editor who said "it seems that you're proposing that we have a proposal." It doesn't make sense. Why don't you just start the document that you're proposing that we propose in your sandbox, invite everyone here to edit and make policy suggestions until we think we've got something real to propose. Cliff ( talk) 04:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have requested informal mediation to resolve the impasse here. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-03/Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So, who turns off the PC trial, and how is it done? -- JaGa talk 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I stopped by to post my answers but it looks like it's flushed? Kind of difficult to figure out without reading the wall of text above. Is there a 1-line answer to whether it's finished/still pending/tossed? Thx. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 09:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. My answers are at
User talk:75.57.242.120/Pending changes questionnaire.
* They were mostly written a few weeks ago when the questionnaire was first posted (I was waiting for it to go live) but I've just tweaked them a little. If someone wants to pagemove it to my user space from user talk, that will let other people comment on its talk page.
75.57.242.120 (
talk)
02:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. All I mean to say is that we should permit editors to individually ask that articles which have benefitted, in their opinion, from PC, should be allowed to request that PC be tagged for such articles. As they are willing to tend to the revisions, there should be no concerns that others will be given an unfair burden of reviewing articles at all. Collect ( talk) 01:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It's 122 to 61. It's been at a 2 to 1 margin pretty much the entire time, and will in all likelihood continue to be at a 2 to 1 margin for however long it continues to run.
When does this poll end? When can we close it? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I split this chunk off from the above thread because they are starting to diverge in topic. For one thing, this little section has become an enraged nine headed venom spewing hydra, while the above was a cordial discussion on timing. Now I've got nothing against hydras, especially in the proper context (Dungeons and Dragons, video games, fantasy literature, tee shirts, etc.) but this is a little much. Let's remember that people posting posting here have strong opinions on the matter and deep protective streaks for Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Suppose you were running a limited term medical trial, would you stop the treatment after the agreed time if it proved successful? Would it be more ethical to keep your word or to break it? To what extent does this analogy apply? AJRG ( talk) 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Harming Wikipedia hurts real people two. People who rely on Wikipedia Don't think any harm has occurred? Consider these comments:
The above quotes clearly show that harm has been done. This proposal is just a baby step toward mitigating that harm. You cannot unring the bell. We need a firm and clear published policy that promising to try something for a limited amount of time and then breaking that promise will never again be tolerated on Wikipedia, and a formal apology for doing it in this case. That is the bare minimum required to start to regain the editor's trust. Guy Macon ( talk) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
In the week that the closing of this RfC has been delayed per the request of a couple of contributors, a grand total of six latecomers have arrived to indicate their support or opposition, yet the byte count of the project page has grown by 20 percent. I make no negative assumptions about the intentions of all who added to that growth, but I do question whether anything that has been added during that period offers any fresh insight to illuminate the question in a meaningful new way.
This phase is a rather straightforward up-or-down proposal to (depending on one's choice of wording) end the trial or end the use of PC until there is clear consensus whether—and, if so, how—it should be deployed. The support–oppose ratio has remained essentially unchanged over the course of phase three, at roughly 2–1 in support of the proposal. While major RfCs on hot-button issues aren't decided on the basis of numbers alone, the most significant points on which the question turns appear to be found, succinct and clear enough, along with the quantifiable element in the "support proposal" and "oppose proposal" sections.
Assuming the presumptive closer is still on board, we're probably only 1–3 days away from the end. There's already a ton of material for even the most patient reader to digest, and the discussion appears to be going around in circles, at best, and perhaps degenerating into something less than perfect civility in places. With the greatest respect to everyone, I'd like to suggest, fwiw, that further comments—unless they offer a genuinely novel perspective—might be more constructively placed here on the talk page. Rivertorch ( talk) 01:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
On 15:45, 16 February 2011, this RfC was born. Yes, there were earlier larval stages, so one could argue that it is much older, but the February 2011 iteration was born one two months ago. Everybody is invited to put on their party hats and blow their noisemakers at exactly 15:45 today. No cake: as GLaDOS once said, "Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test."
Guy Macon (
talk)
15:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem with semi-protection is that only autoconfirmed user can edit.Though anonymous users have played a role in vandalism in most of the articles ,but we have to admit that some of the anonymous Users do actually contribute to Wikipedia by making constructive edits.So I think Pending changes level 1 will be viable alternative to semi-protection because in pending changes protection anyone can edit unlike semi-protection.Moreover if anonymous user or any other user create vandalism on the article,his edit can be unaccepted by reviewer. Suri 100 ( talk) 02:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If you think majority of IP users vandalise wikipedia ,then why not semi-protect all pages? Suri 100 ( talk) 06:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Why cant we move all semi-protected pages to pending changes level 1 protection? Suri 100 ( talk) 12:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There are some occasions that pending is useful in ways that no other current protection possibility is, such as at this article. The addition of pending in Feb has allowed experienced users a degree of editorial control over it, this has resulted in the first decent version I have ever seen. Prior to pending being applied the content was largely an in out, in out. battleground between fans attempting to add promotional content and people that don't like him adding negative issues weakly cited. This resulted in the article being a total mess as some poor additions were spotted and removed and some were not. With the constant inability to protect and improve the article many users wanting to NPOV and improve the content simply walked away writing it off as a waste of time. The attraction of uninvolved experienced editors with pending permission to watch the article and the realization from the promotional supporters of the subject and the vandals that they were wasting their time has stabilized the extremely contentious BLP and yet there is still the option that an unconfirmed user with a beneficial addition can directly post it to the article and have it quite quickly accepted. Adding semi protection to a disrupted article does not attract any additional watchers at all whereas adding pending protection effectively adds and attracts a multitude of experienced watchers. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I accept your statement partially.There are some IP editors who are experienced in making constructive edits to wikipedia.
Suri 100(
talk)
12:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
How is this discussion relevant to the question of whether the short-term trial should be stopped after having already dragged on 7 months after the agreed upon stop time? You seem to equate "PC is a good thing" with "the original commitment to have a trial doesn't need to be honored".— Kww( talk) 16:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The analysis of the article on Zakir Naik is very interesting. Off2riorob is saying that PC is good because it helps us to filter out non-neutral additions to an article. That sounds great, but it isn't what PC was designed to do. You are only supposed to reject obvious vandalism and BLP violations. OK, so some of the non-neutral statements will be BLP violations, but do you see my point?
BTW, I am pretty neutral on whether PC is a good thing and I also think that the current reviewing guidelines are unhelpful, so this isn't an attack on PC. If anything, I want to discuss this sort of thing more, so we can reach some sort of consensus on what PC is for.
Yaris678 ( talk) 18:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This has been often a comment that its unclear 'how to review and connected to that who should be given the permission, so in an attempt to clarify... originally for the trial to get a decent amount of reviewers to get the issue off the ground the permission was given widely and you had to refuse it if you didn't want it and users have said they are confused as to how to review, but as I see it users are reviewing all the time with or without the permission...So users with the permission should review as they would usually do to any edit to their watched pages, as such it almost doesn't even require writing down. You have a look at it and if its uncited and likely false you revert it as you usually would. If its a vandal edit you revert it as you usually would, if its defamation or libel you revert it as you usually would, if it looks useful but uncited you can go look for a citation and add it also and accept it...you do not under any circumstances have to accept anything but vandalism or libel and then re-edit the addition...none of this needs writing down, if you don't know how to review a desired edit then you just should not have the permission. This should be the condition of being given the user right in the future, you should be able to explain to an administrator how you are going to review a contribution and your edit history should support that you are able to edit and assess a desired addition as you say you will if you are given the tool. As such the question is not that you should be asking, how to review? but the question should be asked of you, how do you review? - Off2riorob ( talk) 17:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This came up a lot during the earlier discussions and I see it as one of the core issues users have with the tool that they either didn't know how to review or they though only libel or vandalism should be reverted. Wikipedia:Reviewing#Reviewing process - do users think this is unclear and could be improved? Does it reflect how you review ? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob's comments above about reviewing are interesting, but I'm wondering: What if we don't have a special group of reviewers, and instead let all autoconfirmed users be able to accept edits? (All autoconfirmed users are already able to unaccept, by simply reverting.) Sure, an autoconfirmed user may accept a bad edit, but the same user may make a bad edit, and it will be automatically accepted. (If an autoconfirmed user accepts e.g. obvious vandalism, I think s/he ought to be treated as if s/he had made the edit.) The point is to reduce the number of bad edits, and so far it has worked well on this article. Would this create more support for PC? I'd rather have this kind of PC, than no PC. Dugnad ( talk) 10:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
1. The vandalism should be understood as a pointer to future ones too. In the beginning an article should be considered to have admin level protection, and the level of protection should be decreased in exponential(my preference)/linear manner till lowermost level, and when vandalism increases the level of protection should be increased to twice its previous level, then again increased in same manner till highest point. This may not happen by just one or say a limited number of attempts at vandalism, depending upon load on personnel, so attempts that can increase protection level may be 5 in the beginning, 3 on another day, 2 on still another day and so on. When vandalism decreases, protection level can be reduced exponentially again after a certain period(depending upon load on personnel) and then still further exponentially it later in case there is no vandalism. In short, when a lot of vandalism is detected, increase protection level by twice, when it decreases then decrease the protection level exponentially.
2. At a basic level, one must come to peace with the understanding that there are two sides to any issue, and perhaps encouragingly or not, the man with references wins.
3. In case of contentious references, the issue should be resolved on discussion page first, (till then the section could be locked).
4. Vandalism should be treated lightly in case load on personnel is not much, and stringently otherwise.
Just my 2 cents. Thisthat2011 ( talk) 13:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a few days now and I think a concrete proposal for what to do about Pending changes going forward needs to be made. I'm not 100% clear about who should have the right to review articles, but I think we'll need one before taking it to the community.
Its not 100% and I'm sure it needs further tightening up, but I think its reasonably substantial
Feel free to make any comments and changes below. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Any further comments? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Any further comments on how Pending Changes level 2 should be used? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have boldly closed the current RFC - what to do with Pending protection in the short term. The section is awaiting administrative closure at their convenience. User:Newyorkbrad and User:WJBscribe have offered to assess the discussion. Off2riorob ( talk) 09:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Just as a friendly observation, so please do not misunderstand this as a comment directed at anyone in particular, it seems to me that this page has slowed to being a conversation amongst a relatively small number of users, so perhaps it would be best to wait for the administrative summary before making plans that rest upon interpretations of the results that may not be generally agreed upon. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
What are the remaining issues? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 11:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
As some of you know, I've been asked to opine on and close this phase of the RfC, and I've been reviewing it for that purpose. I find that I'm not quite clear on what is timely to close at this time. Is the only question currently to be closed out, the narrow one of whether to continue the "trial," or something broader? I don't want to stir up a huge fuss or drama by closing the discussion either more broadly or more narrowly than people are expecting.
I'd appreciate any input on this question within 24 hours so I can wrap up the appropriate aspect(s) of the discussion. Thanks. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that the RFC passes, I expect two specific results.
1: I expect every page that currently has PC to becomes a page that does not have PC.
2: I expect the statement "This proposal does not affect potential future use of Pending Changes; it is only to end the trial." to be taken seriously. No "something broader." No "how to move forward." No additional issues "divined from the comments." Once again a firm promise was made" "This proposal ... is only to end the trial." I expect that promise to be kept. Only means only. Guy Macon ( talk) 03:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Brad, it's good to see you here (indeed good to see any resolution in sight)! I think you can see from the talk here that the task before you is to determine consensus as to whether or not PC should be removed for now from pages where it is now. It would be very helpful to define clearly what the "rules" are, with respect to not adding PC to any more pages at this time and with respect to substituting semi-protection for the removed PC. It is agreed by all "sides" that this RfC does not speak to the potential future use of PC, and it would be helpful to repeat that explicitly (it comes from the requirement by the developers that the underlying infrastructure for PC not be removed and then reinstated). Some other editors are, additionally, looking for signals as to the level of community support for eventually using PC in some form; what you do or do not say about that should be a function of what you do or do not see in the consensus. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
For me, I believe that there is, and will continue to be if the RFC remains open or will be reopened, a 2 to 1 supermajority, if not a consensus outright, in support of ending the Pending Changes trial. That is to say, probably remove all articles currently under PC protection and replace with the appropriate level of standard admin protection using the Protection policy, which is a return to the status quo, or the status the wiki had before the introduction of PC. I’ll also note that most of the supports and opposes are based on principles, however, i.e. "a promise is a promise" and "PC is still valuable as a form of protection for current articles". I think, as soon as this RFC is closed, with NewYorkBrad’s administrator closing statements/comments/input/whatever, we can move on to a newer "phase", which would possibly address the second most-important issue of PC with a significant amount of consensus already garnered for it: PC on BLP articles. We can start a newer RFC out of this old one with questions like "Should PC be used on: 1) all BLPs? 2) some BLPs? 3) no BLPs?". :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This is another issue that users seem to want clarification. Do users have some feedback as to places and reasons that the tool should or should not be applied/restricted to certain sectors of the project? Off2riorob ( talk) 08:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion about this here. More feedback is needed. Thanks. — Mike Allen 00:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh boy. I didn't mean to start this.. — Mike Allen 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll be closing this out tonight (New York time). Sorry for the delay; it's been quite a week for me (real-world and otherwise). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
A few preliminaries. First, I'd like to thank the editors who came to my talkpage and asked me to close this discussion, for their confidence. Second, I'd like to apologize for the fact that it's taken me a few more days to finish reviewing the input than I had hoped. Third, I've tried not to write this closing using too much Bradspeak, but if I've failed, forgive me. Fourth, I'd like to ask that if I've posted this closing in the wrong place—e.g., if it should be in a nicely formatted box at the top of the project page or something like that—then could someone please copy it and put it there. (I don't think anyone wants me to delay this closure any longer while I figure that out.)
I'll begin by emphasizing the exact scope of this discussion. The proposal reads: The Pending Changes trial ended many months ago, but around 1000 articles are still using PC protection. It is proposed to remove pending changes protection from all articles, for now, with no prejudice against reinstating it in the future, in some form, based upon consensus and discussion. Thus, that's the only proposal I'm addressing here. The future of pending changes (or flagged revisions or anything else) on English Wikipedia is not being resolved today. And I'm not presenting my own views on PC/FR, partly because that would be off-topic and partly because I have mixed feelings about them.
I find that both supporters and opposers made many valid points throughout the discussion. The vast majority of the comments were reasonable and entitled to full respect in assessing the consensus. Unlike what we have unfortunately seen in many other contentious discussions on-wiki, I did not find many problems with frivolous views, SPAs, socking, or anything else that would warrant discounting any significant number of comments or !votes. (There was certainly some excessive rhetoric from a few commenters, and I hope that future PC/FR discussions can have less of that, but I saw nothing that significantly derailed the discussion.)
As closer, my task is to ascertain consensus, as this vague term is defined on Wikipedia. Clearly we do not have a consensus in the optimal sense of the discussion's converging on a result endorsed by more-or-less everyone. The policy page on consensus tells us that in such a case, "sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes."
Here, the number of commenters supporting the proposal is 127, and the number opposing is 65. That's a bit over 66% in support of ending the pending-changes trial now, without prejudice to community decision-making about a further trial or implementation of PC in the future. A voting result of 66% is not as high as we require for some decision-making (for example, most of the time it wouldn't be sufficient to pass an RfA, although ironically it would have been enough in the last election to get elected an arbitrator)—but it's a two-to-one margin and can't be disregarded either. For purposes of governance decisions on the English Wikipedia, two-to-one is almost a landslide. The basic outcome of the RfC is clear and it is that the current pending-changes trial should come to an end.
The closure comes with two caveats, however. (I am sure that no one expected a closure by me to end without at least two caveats.) The first of these is that we can't just turn off the PC trial by flipping a switch ten minutes from now. Although some of the articles that are currently part of the PC trial were chosen basically at random or as controls, others were put on PC because of serious and persistent vandalism, especially BLP-related vandalism, or of even more serious BLP-related problems. Editors will need time to review the list of articles currently on PC to ensure that as needed, they are semiprotected, placed on more watchlists, etc. Accordingly, the PC trial will end, with the possible exception noted below, 14 days from today.
The second caveat is that there may remain a few articles for which removing PC status would really be grossly irresponsible—an example might be if the trial list includes a handful of extremely sensitive BLPs that have been the subject of persistent vandalism or harassment by sleeper socks (so that semi'ing would be insufficient). This does not reopen, for this discussion, suggestions that "all BLPs should be on PC" or even "all high-risk BLPs should be on PC"—those are respectable viewpoints, and might be outcomes of a future consensus, but for better or worse, they clearly are not what the community has decided now. Still, I can imagine there being some extreme situations where it could be considered outrageous to remove PC with nothing to replace it, and where semiprotecting would be insufficient (and full-protecting would be unreasonable). Relatively few of either the supporters' or the opposers' comments addressed this possibility.
Therefore, I think there is a need for further input on this question: Given that there is a numerical consensus to discontinue the current pending-changes trial, should any exceptions be made for articles with a history of extreme problems that cannot be solved by other means? The most useful responses to this question, I might add, will contain specifics rather than generalities. Given that this RfC has been open for too long already, I ask that editors try to post comments on this new question within 7 days from today. I will post an update to this close afterwards. At that time I will also try to post some suggestions for the next phase of discussions about the future of this entire endeavor.
The proposal itself indicates that adopting it would not affect PC test pages, test pages created in userspace by user request, or the like. Such pages should continue to exist, so that editors who are curious what PC is or who are asked to comment about its adoption in the future, can experiment and know what is being talked about. This exception to "turning off pending changes" is included in the close.
I hope that these comments and conclusions are helpful to the community, and I am sure I don't have to ask that editors should feel free to comment on them. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Since there is not yet another place for comments, I leave mine here. I agree with the closure and thank you for taking the time to make it. With respect to the second caveat, I suggest that the 14 days until implementation should be enough time for interested administrators to put the (hopefully few) potentially problematic articles on full protection temporarily, together with a talk page message stating that anybody who believes that protection is no longer required can discuss it with the protecting admin or if necessary at WP:RUP. Sandstein 10:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
As for the caveat ... that constitutes extending the trial, albeit in a far more limited form. There isn't a consensus that there are any articles that need PC. I do not want to see the trial stretched out while we have another interminable discussion about which articles are special in some manner. We are already extremely late getting this thing put to bed, and further delays aren't necessary. Put all the test articles on semi-protection, and, if there are problem children, that's what full protection is for.— Kww( talk) 11:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer a clean break here, and exceptions will muddy the water.
Chzz ► 16:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Once all the articles are removed from PC, perhaps a notice can be placed at Special:PendingChanges so that reviewers understand why the activity there has ceased and so they don't waste their time repeatedly checking for non-existent articles to review. Maybe also a watchlist notice for reviewers using tools such as User:Joshua Scott/Scripts/pendingchanges.js and others not frequenting the Special:PendingChanges page. If there will still be some articles left under PC, it might be problematic since if Special:PendingChanges is usually empty, reviewers will fall out of the habit of checking. Mojoworker ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: "Given that there is a numerical consensus to discontinue the current pending-changes trial, should any exceptions be made for articles with a history of extreme problems that cannot be solved by other means?"
This assumes something that has not been established as a fact. I contend that articles with a history of extreme problems that cannot be solved by other means do not exist. Wikipedia worked just fine before this trial, and it will work just fine after PC is removed from all pages, as was clearly specified in the RfC. When the PC trial was first proposed, nobody said it was an emergency measure that is desperately needed to handle problems that cannot be solved by other means. It was presented as a trial of another form of protection that may have some advantages over existing forms.
Saying "should any exceptions be made for articles..." is really asking whether PC should, once again, be left on some articles in direct violation of consensus. There was ample opportunity to change the RfC so that it was a proposal to remove PC from most articles with some exceptions. That's not what the RfC proposed. I would really like to know exactly what part of "remove pending changes protection from all articles" is so hard to understand. It seems quite clear to me.
What will it take to get Wikipedia to finally follow consensus? Do we need to put up yet another RfC saying "It is proposed to remove pending changes protection from all articles. This time we really really mean it. All means all, no exceptions. Don't even think about retaining pending changes protection on a single article if this proposal passes. Seriously. Don't go there." Is that what it is going to take? Guy Macon ( talk) 20:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Chzz and Guy have said it well. I agree that consensus is clear for removal of PC and that exceptions would muddy the water. I'd add two points:
I in general appreciate and agree with what seems a thoughtful close on this contentious issue. While I personally do want to see PC implemented in the future and didn't see the harm in having pages where it is useful keep using it, I do in general agree with the principle to no longer add it to pages simply because the trial has ended. However, the "Exceptional examples" section below has brought up new thoughts. I do agree that admins. should not add it to pages through the requests for protection page, but I think if a quick consensus can be achieved at AN/I that a temporary occasional exception,ssuch as the election, be granted. Now, I do not think that the very few pages under this exception will require 5,000 reviewers, and this could actually cause other problems because many of them won't keep an active eye on the updates pages (I know I hadn't lately because initially I thought the trial had ended, and thus stopped using it), but having PC available at an agreement through AN/I for extreme occasional cases where it is warranted is still an option, and then it is immediately removed a few days later or when the possibly contentious period is an an end. It might have been rather useful during reports of Osama bin Laden's death, for instance...but after my experience at the Australian Prime Minister's page the day she was elected, maybe not, and maybe for this election being referred to it may be equally less useful. (Besides, I had an exceptional number of edit conflicts on bin Laden's page myself.) The idea still is that if agreement comes at AN/I, exceptions may be made for very brief periods (not meant to exceed 7 days in most instances). For right now, it's not a tool that admins. at the requests for protection are allowed to simply apply at a whim. Thoughts? CycloneGU ( talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
An interesting example is being discussed on Wales' talk page; as the point re. PC is tangential to that thread, I wanted to bring discussion here;
A user added info to a BLP about an affair the person had [25].
It was removed, and reinserted, a few times.
An editor in good standing ( Trident13 ( talk · contribs)) added it back, with a reference to a UK mainstream newspaper [26].
Much later, it transpired that the allegation was untrue, and it was reported in other newspapers that it was, in fact, a "smear campaign" [27].
I don't consider PC would have helped there, and I don't see that Trident13 did anything 'wrong'. Wikipedia, as a tertiary information providor, gives references to facts in 'reliable sources'. The newspaper in question is a tabloid, with a somewhat grubby reputation, but it's still an RS, surely. Sometimes, RS are wrong - but, is it really the duty of Wikipedia to investigate and check everything in newspapers?
Jimbo Wales said, That edit is more than enough to cause the instant removal of the reviewer flag [28].
If that is the case, then 'Reviewer' is something very different from what we've been discussing - and, it'd be a much higher standard required. Chzz ► 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Those instances, along with some of the recent comments on Jimbo's talk page, suggest to me is that when it comes to biographical content basic logic and reason, not to mention such niceties as consensus-based editing in a collaborative environment, are casually dismissed as irrelevant and replaced by fear-based emotional reactions leading to summary threats of blocking. That sort of "my way or the highway" attitude creates a chilling effect, making it literally impossible for to discuss policy nuances except in the most general terms. If this trend is carried to its logical conclusion, I predict an exodus of long-term editors; some will leave the project entirely, while others will simply choose not to edit any articles containing BLP elements.
Psychologically and sociologically, it's all quite interesting—some of the panicked cries of "libel" and "crisis" suggest something along the lines of group hysteria—but it's also deeply damaging to the project. Aside from threatening the continuance of the largely congenial editing environment that has marked Wikipedia's history thus far, it also may signal the end of any reasonable expectation that neutrality and comprehensiveness are attainable objectives in a large segment of our articles.
I have tried to remain open to the idea that something along the line of Pending Changes might be useful if applied sparingly under very stringent conditions, but I have to say that I am not optimistic about it. In fact, I'm worried there may be a move to apply it liberally to talk pages, effectively stifling any meaningful discussion except among those (dwindling few?) deemed worthy of the reviewer right. Rivertorch ( talk) 19:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody place an appropriate box announcing the result of the RfC at the top of the following pages?
Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 (AKA This page)
Wikipedia talk:Pending changes
Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer
Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Reviewer
...and possibly...
Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions
Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions
The notice should mention that PC can start up again. Guy Macon ( talk) 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely clear about the result given, nor how to present it. Is there any consensus to use any form of pending changes on any pages at all?
If there isn't, then why do we have to pussy-foot around this?
If there is - or, if there is a suggestion to use it - then a new proposal would be in order.
Otherwise, we're still in limbo - with PC in use, on certain articles, in certain cases, with certain persons able to review, with absolutely no agreement to do so. Chzz ► 02:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggested wording for a notice box to be placed on the pages listed above: Retracted; Off2riorob has a better wording (see below).
![]() | Administrators should start work immediately on removing the pending protection from all articles. In many cases, the removing editor will want to replace pending changes protection with semi-protection or full protection. This affects article space only; pending changes test pages created in userspace should continue to exist, so that editors can experiment. The deadline for having pending changes protection removed from all articles is Friday, 20 May 2011. |
Guy Macon ( talk) 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The Request for Comment on Pending Changes Protection is now closed. The consensus was that the trial is over and that Pending changes protection should be removed from all articles by Friday, 20 May 2011. - with no prejudice against reinstating it in the future, in some form, based upon consensus and discussion. |
- hi, can we please keep them all the same, so we should alter them all. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
We still do not have a notice on Special:PendingChanges. How do we make that happen? Guy Macon ( talk) 17:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
In the MediaWiki%3AProtect-text history I see the notice was added, but when I look at The current version of the page I do not see the notice. (tested on Firefox and Opera, logged in and logged out).
Also, why does the protection infobox contain the phrase "...for the page $1" (Wikimarkup '''''<nowiki>$1</nowiki>''''')? It has been that way since the page was created in 2007. Are the nowiki tags an error?
Still no notice at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Protect-text - The notice is there if you loojk at the source, but it is not displayed. Guy Macon ( talk) 19:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
(Please use Wikipedia:WikiProject Time, not local time.)
The goal is to reach zero by Friday, 20 May 2011
Articles with level 1 pending changes
Articles with level 2 pending changes
Test Pages (no need to change these)
Count as of 03:00 on Monday 16 May 2011: Level 1 = 348 . Level 2 = 54 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Count as of 01:45 on Wednesday 18 May 2011: Level 1 = 275 . Level 2 = 49 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Count as of 06:56 on Saturday 21 May 2011: Level 1 = 226 . Level 2 = 33 -- Guy Macon Guy Macon ( talk) 07:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Count as of 17:45 on Saturday 21 May 2011: Level 1 = 143 . Level 2 = 34 -- Guy Macon Guy Macon ( talk) 17:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Moving count to end of talk page. It was an error on my part making an editorial comment rather than simply reporting progress. Sorry about that. Guy Macon ( talk) 08:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
(Comments deleted because multiple editors do not think the statement was justified) Guy Macon ( talk) 07:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem with implementing this is that it requires admins to do work, and work requires time; I'm pretty sure most admins would rather spend their time doing something else, like editing articles, or doing IRL stuff that needs to be done. It'll be done, but be patient. Hint: going "OMGWTFBBQ WHY ISN'T THIS DONE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!" doesn't motivate admins to do this massive task. -- Rs chen 7754 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
http://toolserver.org/~chzz/pc.php
That is, select count(*) from flaggedpages join page where page_id = fp_page_id and page_namespace = 0 ;
...which is, articles only, how many have PC, now
Hope that helps. Chzz ► 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
First off, my sincere apologies for not having gotten these comments posted a few days ago as I had hoped. For various reasons that will not be of general interest, I have had limited wiki-time this week.
I have carefully reviewed the input on this page since my closing two weeks ago. My initial reaction is that I am concerned by the limited amount of input that has been received. It appears that the closing and my request for follow-up attention by administrators and for follow-up input on a specific, narrow question has, due to no fault of anyone in particular, received far too little attention using our internal publicity mechanisms. This situation should be corrected.
Despite this problem, it appears that administrators have been giving attention to articles that have been part of the pending changes (PC) trial, including deciding whether to use semiprotection in lieu of PC. However, there are still a couple of hundred articles under PC so this job obviously has not yet been fully completed. In light of the lack of publicity and the need for administrators to give careful attention to this task, I think it is best that we allow PC status on any articles within the PC trial that have not yet been carefully reviewed by an administrator, to remain in place for 7 additional days. In other words, the "deadline" for termination of the PC trial (except as otherwise specified), which had been today, is extended for 7 days. I acknowledge that in light of the 2-to-1 result of the RfC, even this limited extension may be near the limit of what can be considered consistent with consensus. Therefore, except as described below, I do not anticipate any further extensions.
In my closing, I specifically asked for comments on the following specific question: Given that there is a numerical consensus to discontinue the current pending-changes trial, should any exceptions be made for articles with a history of extreme problems that cannot be solved by other means? I thank the editors who have commented on this issue, although as noted I regret that there weren't more comments.
I understand the input I have received to the effect that it is desirable to draw a clear line separating the completed PC trial from any future implementation of PC, flagged revisions, or any similar system. Terminating the PC trial as to the vast majority of the articles that were under PC is consistent with the consensus. I remain seriously concerned, however, that for a small number of biographies of living persons, turning off PC without a reasonable substitute would be an irresponsible thing for the project to do.
Specifically, I refer to the subset of BLP articles in which there has been a serious problem of persistent vandalism, defamation, harassment of the article subject, or the like. Contrary to the views of some of our critics, I do not believe the number of such articles is a major fraction of our overall number of BLPs. But it is not a trivial problem either, by a long shot, and there have been instances of serious BLP problems even within the past couple of weeks.
I do not believe that the majority consensus in this RfC would necessarily oppose allowing PC to remain, for the interim period until we make a final decision here, on this limited subset of BLP articles. For some of them, there seems to be no good alternative to leaving PC intact: semiprotecting does not protect against defamation of article subjects by determined enemies or harassers who register sleeper socks and take the trouble to get autoconfirmed; and full protection would be an overreaction (and if instituted faute de mieux in the absence of PC, would be a far more drastic limitation on the ability to edit than PC is; I do not understand any argument that full-protection of an article is a better state for it to be in than pending-changes).
Therefore, my current inclination is to allow a limited exception to the termination of the PC trial, for the interim period (defined as the period in which the longer-term status of PC/FR is under discussion, up to 90 days), in which an administrator would be permitted to apply PC status to an article provided that:
If this exception is allowed during the interim period (which I've defined as lasting no more than about 90 days), like the termination of the PC trial in all other respects, it will be entirely without prejudice to the ultimate fate of PC/FR as decided in the future. It also would be meant to apply to a reasonably limited number of articles; it is not meant to be an exception that would swallow the rule.
Comments on this proposal will be appreciated, within the next 7 days. With the possible exception outlined above, the PC trial should be considered in its final stages of winding down, with a deadline of 7 days from today.
I also indicated in my closing that I would provide some suggestions for discussion of the next phase of PC/FR.
I think that some prior discussions and attempts to gauge consensus have foundered because the community was trying to discuss too many issues at the same time, and because the continuum of options was not broken out well enough to gauge support for each.
Basically, I think there are three separate—although of course related—discussions to be had.
(1) The discussion of whether we want to have PC/FR at all. I think that any RfC or poll needs to be broken down within the following continuum of options:
I think an RfC page presenting these options, perhaps with some tweaking of the wording or categories, could help bring us closer to knowing what consensus is, or indeed whether there is any hope of consensus being achieved at all. (I am not addressing here the "meta" question of what we should do if community opinion remains widely scattered among these options and we don't have any decision at all; suffice unto the day....) My suggestion is that an RfC among these options be set up to begin about 10 days from now, be widely publicized, and remain open for 45 days to obtain as broad in put as possible. We could then follow with a phase that would yield a specific final outcome within the selected option.
(2) The technical discussion. Features of PC/FR, how it should work, issues concerning the interface, and the like. I'm not an expert on these issues, so will defer in suggesting how this RfC page might best be set up in favor of those who are. I think this phase of an RfC could proceed in parallel with (1) and on more-or-less the same timetable.
(3) The personnel and operational issues. E.g., how we should select reviewers, what the criteria should be for accepting or rejecting edits, etc. This phase of the discussion, I think, would need to follow (1) and (2).
Comments on how the next phase of PC/FR input should proceed, including on my suggested methodology for RfCs as set forth just above, are also invited, within the next 7 days.
I hope these comments and suggestions are helpful. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe a large reason that not many people have commented thus far is because everyone is entirely burnt out. There has been continuous discussion on this matter for a full year, not counting the myriad of discussions we had before that. Might I suggest that any long-term discussion be postponed for more than 90 days (maybe more like 6-12 months)? NW ( Talk) 00:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm so utterly frustrated; this is a travesty, a total failure to adhere to core principles regarding consensus.
I do not accept this closure.
This is now beyond ludicrous.
Another seven days? On and on this goes, with no consensus for using PC. A two-month trial; the ending ignored. "Drop-dead date" - ignored. THIS closure, a 2 week deadline (Fri 20th) - ignored. Clear consensus to end the farce - apparently, ignored.
What on Earth gives you, NYBrad, the authority to override consensus, to judge that the community wants to allow exceptions?
If you (NY Brad) think that PC should be used on certain articles, you must propose it and get agreement - just like anyone else should.
I am very concerned that the events here have done massive damage to all our faith in consensus, in due process through community discussion. I hope the damage is not irreparable, but I will find it extremely difficult to believe in the process of consensus any more.
The proposal you assessed clearly, unequivocally, found in favour of ending the trial. There was no talk of exclusions. I'm annoyed. Chzz ► 02:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's put away the pitchforks, folks, and the conspiracy theories (without evidence, that is—if off-wiki pressure is being applied, someone with knowledge of it really should blow the whistle). I firmly believe, NYB, that you are acting with the best interests of the project at heart, but I think your decision here is faulty. It amounts to setting aside consensus in favor of expediency, and that—intentions notwithstanding—is unlikely to do the project any good. Consensus (or at least the striving to attain it) is at the very heart of everything that's meaningful about Wikipedia: its content, policies, procedures, and the possibilities it holds for remaining viable as an online community of people with certain objectives in common. If we cannot trust that consensus will be respected, what are we left with?
I'm not sure why you think the response to your closure was disappointing. Those who could still be bothered to pay attention and wished to respond did respond. My impression, based on the PC-removal activity I kept stumbling across all week, was simply that many more people were aware of the closure than cared to comment. In my comments I mused about how to determine the appropriate protection level for the non-trial articles, and I expressed the view that dealing with those articles separately (i.e., later) might not be unreasonable. I still think so—although I'd add the caveats that "later" must be very soon and that we must have consensus for it. At the moment, consensus appears to be running strongly against any such thing.
In any event, pushing the deadline back another week across the board (not just for the non-trial articles) seems like pointless procrastination. It contradicts the very clear timeframe you outlined for the trial articles in your first closure, and it appears to do so without any fresh justification. I think that's disappointing. Rivertorch ( talk) 09:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
--
Tryptofish (
talk)
14:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The endless, impotent whingeing about "there's no consensus—there's no consensus—there's no consensus" is irritating. Folks, let me point out that the truest definition of "consensus" on Wikipedia is what we do. And if every single one of our admins has, through inaction, actually refused to remove PC from a given article, then the fact is that we don't have a consensus to remove PC from that article.
This is not news. This is the system we use everywhere. Want an article to be deleted? If zero individual admins are willing to delete it, then in practice, then consensus is that the article should be kept. Want a user unblocked? If zero individual admins are willing to unblock the account then in practice, then consensus is that the user is de facto banned. Want an article under semi-protection? If zero individual admins are willing to protect it, then in practice, then consensus is that the article's current settings are what we're going to have.
We have some 750 active admins at any given point in time. If you can't find one admin out of those hundreds who is willing to change the settings, then you effectively have 750 !votes in favor of keeping PC on whichever articles are still under PC—and that's a true, impregnable consensus on the English Wikipedia.
(As a practical matter: if you believe the consensus is to remove PC from these last few articles, then I suggest that you spend your time figuring out which of your friends are admins and asking them personally to take responsibility for the changes. The finger-pointing and whingeing on this page will never get the job done.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, I don't find your suggestion about exceptions acceptable, as I don't believe it is at all supported by consensus on the proposal page. Could you please provide some diffs illustrating that of the people supporting the proposal, a very significant fraction were only supporting conditional on PC remaining for certain BLPs? I'm sure you understand how divisive and draining a new month-long "remove PC from all articles and this time we mean all" RFC would be.
I understand that the situation regarding PC has become very complicated, with no easy answers moving forward. On the one hand we have a powerful tool for protecting BLPs, which many editors believe is significantly more useful than semi- and full protection and will only become more so as remaining points of contention, such as ease of use and process for selecting reviewers, are ironed out. On the other hand, due to what I can only describe as breathtaking myopia, PC was introduced and kept in place in a way many perceive as running roughshod over the wishes of the larger community; from reading the comments on the main RFC page you can see that a bitter taste has been left in the mouths of many editors, who now irrationally oppose PC out of principle. That the well has been thus poisoned is extremely regrettable, and could have been avoided if only the introduction of PC had been handled with more finesse and less haste.
Let's not repeat that mistake today. A completely neutral interpretation of the "landslide" consensus that emerged at this RFC is exactly what we need in order to start clean, to discuss the future role of PC on Wikipedia without the emotional baggage that has accrued during the trial. Putting PC on certain BLPs may very well be the best solution at our disposal for those pages... but let's come to that conclusion as a community, through consensus, rather than by administrator fiat, in defiance of consensus. A few dozen fully-protected BLPs will not kill Wikipedia. On the other hand, the perception that we can no longer make decisions collaboratively, that overwhelming consensus is no longer binding on administrators who dislike the outcome... the harm there is incalculable. Wikipedia cannot succeed once its contributors refuse to work cooperatively. TotientDragooned ( talk) 03:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Issues:
We have the unfortunate situation now of an admin, Kww, being blocked by Scott MacDonald for removing PC from BLPs. There is a discussion on AN/I. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 17:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
And to think I thought Off2riorob and myself were staunch supporters of PC, and now we have documented an admin. blatantly refusing to allow its removal - this takes the cake. Articles like the ones he mentioned are exactly why I vouched to keep PC on limited articles thus lowering its scope since the trial is ended. However, I still agree that it's more important to follow consensus. I slightly disagree with it, but I can't fight it. CycloneGU ( talk) 04:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Pending protection is now removed from all articles as per the consensus -
Off2riorob (
talk)
15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
|
---|
This is a count of how many articles are still using Pending Changes. (Please use Wikipedia:WikiProject Time, not local time.) The goal was to reach zero by Friday, 20 May 2011 Articles with level 1 pending changes Articles with level 2 pending changes Test Pages (no need to change these) Count as of 03:00 on Monday 16 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 348 , Level 2 = 54 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 01:45 on Wednesday 18 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 275 , Level 2 = 49 . -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 06:56 on Saturday 21 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 226 , Level 2 = 33 . -- Guy Macon Guy Macon ( talk) 07:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 17:45 on Saturday 21 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 143 , Level 2 = 34 . -- Guy Macon Guy Macon ( talk) 17:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 08:03 on Sunday 22 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 128 , Level 2 = 32 . -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 18:08 on Sunday 22 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 125 , Level 2 = 30 . -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Count as of 05:30 on Monday 23 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 99 , Level 2 = 9 . -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Count as of 15:45 on Monday 23 May 2011 (UTC): Level 1 = 0 , Level 2 = 0 . -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC) |
By a vote of 9-0, a majority of the Arbitration has voted to pass a preliminary injunction. Arbitration policy states that "injunctions are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes". In the event that there is insufficient agreement among the Committee to open the case, clarification should be requested from the Arbitration Committee on how to proceed.
The injunction was proposed and passed after User:Scott MacDonald brought a case to the Committee regarding the implementation of the shutdown of pending changes. At the time of the passage of this injunction, the case request is currently pending before the Committee. The injunction is the following:
Any administrator who removes pending changes protection from any article flagged as a biography of a living person shall replace level 1 pending changes with semi-protection of an equivalent duration and replace level 2 pending changes with full protection of an equivalent duration. This measure shall be effective immediately, and administrators who have recently removed pending changes from biographies of living persons articles are expected to assure that these protection levels are applied to articles from which pending changes protection has been removed.
For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (
Talk)
15:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As noted by a few arbs, this does not prevent admins from subsequently, even the same admin immediately after, consider in their own appreciation which level of protection is needed, with all due regards to the specifics of the article and in accordance with WP:PP. The reason arbcom doesn't mention this yet acknowledges it unofficially is because they want to appear tough on BLP issues. Cenarium ( talk) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Having reviewed the input since Friday night carefully (I've been travelling with limited wiki access over the weekend), please note the following:
1. Excessive rhetoric is unhelpful in any discussion on Wikipedia. Some of the comments posted since Friday evening were excessively strident and unwarranted.
2. Any implication that either my original closing or my additions to it on Friday were affected by lobbying by Jimbo Wales, the Foundation, or other arbitrators, is completely unfounded. There has been no such lobbying of any kind. In addition, my closure here has nothing to do with my arbitration responsibilities, and I've recused myself as an arbitrator in the related arbitration case (including on the vote on the injunction).
3. Given that the task of carefully evaluating the articles that were still under PC as of Friday had obviously not been completed, I see nothing controversial in my extending the deadline by a week. The alternative would have been simply to remove the PC on all the remaining articles by pressing a button, without considering whether anything was necessary to replace it, which would have been irresponsible.
4. It appears that administrators are now in the final phase of reviewing the remaining articles under PC and evaluating whether no protection, semiprotection, or (hopefully in rare cases) full protection is appropriate for each. I trust that this can be completed by this coming Friday so that we don't face the gnashing of teeth that would accompany extending the deadline again. The ArbCom injunction (which as noted I did not vote on or for) may also help draw some attention to the need to wrap this up.
5. I am keenly aware that in the two weeks of input on the original closure, no one came to this page suggesting a specific BLP on which continued protection might have been warranted. To a large extent, this may reflect consensus that the current version of PC is not a good solution to BLP issues, but I was concerned that to a certain extent it might also reflect that the RfC closure and my request for additional input was underpublicized. I am also concerned that the latter situation still has not been addressed (although I do not anticipate using this as a basis for extending the deadline another time).
6. On the other hand, at least one of our administrators with an enormous amount of experience in dealing with sensitive BLP issues opined on his talkpage that there indeed are serially vandalized BLP articles on which PC should continue to be used, and where neither semiprotection nor full protection would do as well (see, User talk:Scott MacDonald#Dustin Diamond). To my dismay, this admin opined that my closure discussion was too long to read, and he declined to come to this page to present his opinion, which therefore was not responded to by others who have strongly opposing views. I did not, however, think it made sense simply to ignore it.
7. "BLP" is not a catchphrase that, by intoning it, automatically supersedes all our policies, norms, and community decision-making. On the other hand, the group of issues that we collectively categorize as "BLP" go beyond the internal dynamics and politics of our project, because the contents of these articles can have profound impacts on the articles subjects. In my comments on Friday night, I did not purport to impose a new "PC for BLPs" policy by fiat; I asked whether there might be consensus for a narrow exception to the existing consensus to end the PC trial that my original closure had recognized. At the moment, it certainly appears that the answer will probably be no, but I make absolutely no apology for asking the question.
8. On the merits of the issue, I gather the reason there is strong opposition to even a limited BLP exception to ending the trial (other than repeated chants of "the trial is over! the trial is over!") is fear that it would be overutilized. I agree that it would not be in order, under any form of exception, to routinely substitute PC for semiprotection. On the other hand, there still seem to be people who think that it would be better for a handful of articles to be full-protected than for them to be on a PC status. If that is consensus, so be it, but it still strikes me as odd and I would still welcome someone's explaining it.
9. Regarding where the discussion goes from here, I'd still welcome thoughts on whether my outline for the next wave of RfCs is helpful or not, or what might do better. I also note NuclearWarfare's suggestion that we take a break before the next round of discussion; but others seem to be saying the opposite, so we need some more views on this.
I hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |