Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

Comments from Newyorkbrad

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)

• I agree completely with NW. We need a break with PC for some time, the community has become really tired of it. Let's just apply the arbcom injunction blindly, then see which protection level is needed for articles with all due regard to the article specifics and in accordance with WP:PP, and be done with it. Of course if it were not for the unconsidered actions of some who were overzealous at wanting PC immediately, we would have by now a consensual permanent PC implementation. Cenarium (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Second that. A break will give everyone time to calm down and think about what is the best way to proceed. I would also suggest that when this comes up again a better title be chosen than "Request for Comment February 2011" and that the location of the new discussion be publicized with a notice on all of the previous pages that have dealt with this topic.Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• - There is no requirement for a break of any kind. In fact I see a six month break request as simply turning this unconditional to future use end of trial into a never for ever situation. IMO we should get this over with - lay out what there is possible consensus for and poll it in the near future - to take a break for months would simply make all the discussion and consideration of the last months stale and wasted. The trial has been ended as requested and we have discussed and considered for months, we now know exactly how the tool works and where it is beneficial and what we expect of reviewers and who to give the reviewers status to and the level of usage that there may well be a consensus for and as such we should offer that to the community in the near future. Off2riorob (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've suggested before, the deadline has been set; pending changes should be removed from all articles; and this abomination should end. It is only after that can we ask for an RfC on BLPs, as appropriate. BLP may override consensus, but since we have the old protection system, consensus comes first before pending changes. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TelCo; This "short break" is a transparent attempt to keep PC in place without consensus. This needs to be settled here and now. These constant reboots of the RFC and breaks are a transparent attempt to wear out, confuse, and outlast all opposition to PC. No more reboots. No more breaks. Forget about it. Run this RFC, and if there is no clear consensus to implement, junk PC. I'm sorry if you people don't like it, but that's the honest way of handling this. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 09:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sithman, TelCoNaSpVe, I'm pretty sure that Newyorkbrad is talking about a break after removal of PC and before seeking consensus to reinstate it, not about keeping PC on any articles during the break. Off2riorob, if we jump right back into discussion without a cooling off period, there is a good chance that the timing will cause the proposal to fail. Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I though there was some crossed purposes commenting there. As for the break - Perhaps, I am looking at around one month discussion to tweak and present the proposal which is not so straight away as to have a chilling effect, at least I don't think so. At the most, a six week break during which the proposal will be refined and discussed and after that break/discussion/proposal tweak a final accept or reject proposal can be presented for RFC. I am also hopeful that the accept or reject RFC on usage will gain only comments as to the value or lack of value of the tool through users experience and/or usage of the tool and not users thoughts and opinions as to the trial. As in - RFC - please comment on the tool and not the trial. Off2riorob (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As I read NYB's dicta, I saw no such requirement that we wait any set period of time - ndeed he noted that some might like a short break. If we do not resolve this shortly, we will enter an exceedingly quiet time historically for Wikipedia (from late June through August, many folks disappear) and so I would suggest that since an RfC runs for a full month, that it be commenced quite shortly. If we wait until late June, the RfC will be a bit of a flop by any standards of seeking participation. Let's get it started - it will not be over until nearly the end of June in any case. Again, I ask that you do the honours. "If 'twere done when 'tis done, 'tis well, It were done quickly." Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying exceptional pending-changes protection

Brad asked for comments on the idea of exceptions for some BLPs. I think part of the problem is that it hasn't been clear what this means. I would like to propose that if there are to be any exceptions it should be like this:

• Exceptional pending-changes protection (EPCP) is for cases where semi-protection is insufficient. It is not a simple alternative to semi-protection.
• Specifically, EPCP is for use on BLP-related articles subject to attack by sleeper accounts, which are bordering on consideration for full-protection.
• Articles protected by EPCP shall concurrently have both level-2 pending-changes protection and semi-protection.

I hope this would make it clear we are talking about a very small number of cases and a form of protection that is different to that which people will be familiar with from the pending-changes trial.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you - or anyone - would like to propose it, then propose it. Seek consensus. The problem here is, 'consensus' is being invented, instead of sought. (No offence intended; of course, comments are welcome. I'm just trying to emphasize - any such proposals to use PC are...well, proposals)  Chzz  ►  12:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Brad said "We might want to allow a limited exception to terminating the trial" not "There will be a limited exception to terminating the trial". He has also asked for comments on the idea. If there was a fault, it was that the idea wasn't expressed in concrete-enough terms, hence most people ignoring it for a few weeks and him having to bring it up again.

The above is my attempt to make something more concrete, based on what Brad was talking about. I probably will propose it in an RfC, but I thought I would ask if anyone had any thoughts on the idea first.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it, we would logically archive the content of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 and have the RfC there, as the fourth phase, since it relates directly to the third phase.

If there is something I am considering changing in my own proposal it is the use of the term "BLP-related". You could argue that it should be considered for any article subject to attack by sleeper accounts, which is bordering on consideration for full-protection... its just that the majority of such cases will be BLP-related.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide examples of articles where it is impossible to alleviate the concerns by SP or FP but where PC (lvl 1 or 2) would ? Cenarium (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

See Bambifan example below. That example is not BLP-related, which goes to confirm my thought that the exception shouldn't be BLP specific. Yaris678 (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Any article can be protected from inappropriate edits by full page protection; the problem is that the article is then "protected" from good edits as well, since relatively few editors (and no new editors) will go to the trouble of making an edit request (or even know how to do it). Here's what I think has been lost sight of: given the choice between no protection and pending changes, PC is more restrictive; given the choice between semiprotection and PC, there is a tradeoff in restrictiveness; but given the choice between full protection and pending changes, PC is less restrictive. I asked above why anyone would prefer to see a group of articles full-protected than on PC; no one responded directly, but I gather the concern is that the PC designation would be overused. But if we could all agree on criteria (such as those I embodied in my suggestion Friday night), would there still remain an issue? (Note: I'm not necessarily meaning as an outcome of the current-stage RfC, but in general.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is well known of all, but the community rejected PC nonetheless. If you want some 'exceptions' then you will need to have the whole debate started anew, which policy, which standards, which articles, etc, and get consensus for it. I estimate the chance of success at the moment to zero, the community has become too tired of PC for now, we need to wait for a while. The proposal was to remove PC, there was no exception, the extent of the closer's discretion does not include any line-item veto. The plan had always been for admins to use their discretion in the transition with all due regards to article and protection specifics and in accordance with the protection policy. This situation escalated because of one admin who didn't want to hear consensus. It is high time to put an end to this and get on with business as usual; and when enough time will have passed, we'll be able to reconsider the use PC. Cenarium (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much ditto with Cenarium (presuming that I'm not the "one admin" he refers to). We'll have to wait a while. I think it's a shame that this botched trial prevented a defective but promising feature that needed some revision from ever getting revised into something worthwhile. In a while, a properly structured trial with a software-enforced "drop dead" date may make some sense, and I think a focus on using PC level 2 as an alternative to full protection makes more sense than focusing on PC level 1 as an alternative to semi-protection.—Kww(talk) 13:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the idea of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 being used to hold another RfC. That RfC was about removing PC from current pages without prejudice against restarting it later if the consensus is to do so. Most of the comments in that RfC were about continuing a trial without consensus. A new RfC for something else entirely should have a fresh new page with no discussion about the trial; the old discussions would just poison the well . Besides, "Request for Comment February 2011" sucks as a title for an RfC that started many months later. A descriptive title would be far better. Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 perhaps doesn't have the best title but it has happened in three phases, only the last of which relates to removing PC without prejudice against restarting it later. That was seen as a side issue that had to be dealt with before returning to the other issues of pending changes. I don't think we should forget about the first two phases. Having further phases seems to make sense, but if there is consensus to use a different page title then I am fine with that. Yaris678 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The title is a bit silly at this point, but it might be more confusing to change it. Maybe with redirects? (I always thought February was the shortest month.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to NY Brad, re. "relatively few editors (and no new editors) will go to the trouble of making an edit request (or even know how to do it)" (above);

Do you actually know that to be true?

Have you seen the system in place for processing such requests? You can see it with e.g. this link (using prot article Anne Frank just by way of example, and the 'fake' IP addy of 127.0.0.1) - or log out and try editing something.

There's Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, which seems to work reasonably well. For example, today, there was a request on Talk:WWE Capitol Punishment (and there's another there, from a couple of weeks back).

I agree the process could be improved, but claiming that it is impossible to new editors is a very strong assertion, with no evidence - and a cursary glance at PERs shows it is false.

Also - I'm confused, what is happening here, NY Brad. Is the 'closure' of the RfC finished with? It doesn't seem over. In which case, surely, you shouldn't be putting forward your opinions on the actual debate (until after it is closed, and we can move on to fresh discussion, fresh proposals).

We've discussed the things you mention. At length...for a long time. Yes, some feel that in some ways, PC can be less restrictive. But, that's not the immediate issue.

The immediate issue is, ending the trial.

One of the primary reasons for removing PC is so that we can have meaningful discussion.

Whilst PC remains on some articles, such discussions are unlikely to be productive.

We need to 'clear the air'. First.

And then think of ways forwards.  Chzz  ►  17:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, PC is gone from all articles now. Agree that new editors and unregistered users seem to have no trouble making edit requests; I responded to one such request earlier today. Rivertorch (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Defense against persistent sockpuppetry

This past Friday (20 May), another suspected sockpuppet of Bambifan101 appeared and started wreaking havoc in his preferred targets, articles on Disney animated films, such as The Fox and the Hound and Dumbo. These articles have been, in many cases, placed on indefinite semi-protection due to his activities, but this latest assault showed a new technique that semi-protection couldn't block. An anon IP (quite possibly Bambifan himself) made innocuous edits to these articles, which the new Bambifan sock (created 5 days earlier, but with no activity) would then revert, boosting his edit count to the point where he would reach auto-confirmed status and then be free to edit at will, even with Pending Changes Level 1 and semi-protection in place. Fortunately, a number of diligent and Bambifan-aware editors were able to stop his attack until he was blocked yet again.

While researching pending changes after the attack, I discovered the Level 2 setting which, prior to that, I had never heard of. Based on the description provided, it would seem that Level 2 protection added to semi-protection would provide enough defense against similar attacks. If Bambifan were to use the same technique, he'd be free to edit, but they wouldn't be visible until a reviewer-equipped editor checked the work, increasing his chance of exposure and being blocked when his pattern is recognized. Similarly, the amount of time needed to build up confidence from an admin to add reviewer rights to his account (and thus permit unlimited carnage until he were blocked again) might be so long that he simply gets bored with waiting and decides to, basically, go and bug someone else.

Bambifan is hardly the only persistent sockpuppeteer on the project, so perhaps this combination defense (semi-protection plus Level 2 pending) may be useful for articles that are targets of such characters but also have a cadre of diligent editors who are not admins, and thus couldn't edit a fully-protected article.

--McDoobAU93 13:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I fight sockpuppetry as my primary activity, and think that Bambifan101's obsession with "The Fox and the Hound" constitutes an extreme corner case that would be hard to base policy on. I had taken the unusual step of long-term full-protection on the article, which was overriden and reduced to PC. When PC was removed, the full-protection should have been reinstated.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

While maybe not enough to create policy (just yet), that's precisely why PC2+Semi should be tried on a limited basis, to see if it does protect against such vandals. Yes, full-protection would indeed eliminate them, but it also would prevent editors who are working to improve the article (such as myself, although The Fox and the Hound itself hasn't been one of them directly) but are not admins from editing as well, and increasing the workload on admins who would have to respond to edit requests from trusted editors. Again, this is such a narrow, easily-defined category in which to test this application of pending changes — it's a small number of articles, but ones that are high-profile and also at a defined high risk for attack from a known, persistent vandal. --McDoobAU93 14:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The number of articles this affects should be so small that such requests should be able to be made through RfPP or another equivalent venue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that PC can be requested via RfPP. If you think PC Level 2 should be used on some articles (as a trial), make a proposal for that. Let people evaluate it. Define scope. Define who may review articles.  Chzz  ►  17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - PC is unable to be requested at all - the trial is over. Users that support the tool for some kind of ongoing usage can help to lay out the definitions for its usage over the next couple of weeks and get their hands out of their pockets and support its accepted use. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Shit, I was wildly unclear. I mean that if we allow Pending Changes to be used again then it could be requested through RfPP for these edge cases. I don't think another trial is needed for this edge case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification achieved?

Cool. I think my using more concrete terms has had the desired effect and got the issues in the open. It looks like some people like the idea of using PC in this way but that it would require consensus in the same way as any other form of PC.

My own judgement on it is that PCL2+semi could be handy but that the arguments over PCL2+semi vs full are similar to those over PCL1 vs semi. I don’t see a particular need to go through them all again in the immediate future.

However, the arguments aren’t identical and I think the idea is an interesting one and warrants attention at some point, separate from the wider PC issue. However, I don’t think now would be a good time, when everyone has PC fatigue.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward - Archive

As this is over - I suggest archiving all this after 24 or 48 hours and renaming the page for the final RFC and suggest as a possibility - Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/proposal for accepted usage - any ojections to this or alternative suggestions please comment, thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's put this all behind us.TotientDragooned (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead of "proposal for accepted usage", I would suggest "proposals for future usage" as I am sure several disparate proposals will be made, and "accepted" would be obvious for any adopted proposals. Reasonable enough? Collect (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Let's make sure that the archived page has a prominent link to the new, renamed page. Rivertorch (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Collect your rename is preferable Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/proposal for usage - any improvements welcome... actually I think there is no need for the pural as we have already got got quite close to a proposal and although we are going to discuss and tweak , there is only going to be one actual proposal. - I also removed future - do we need that - its just a proposal for usage..? Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the name and want to resist coloring bike sheds; my very slight preference is to include "future" to stress that we are moving beyond the parameters of the trial. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Either name is fine. I can definitely help with proposal additions, from seeing how it has worked I have a pretty good idea of what articles could benefit from it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about renaming all three past phases here? They wouldn't fit neatly under a heading like "proposals for future usage". What we have is a kind of Wikipedia:Village pump (pending changes). OK, so there has been a little more organisation to it than that, but do you see what I mean? Perhaps if we admitted that we can't be massively organised that would also help. PC has had many attempts to structure the discussion, which have got so far before it starts to look like a bit like chaos. Yaris678 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I already created the archive location in the same way the other two were created. Right now, it redirects to the project page for this talk page. When we archive this, move the whole damn thing to that location (first deleting the redirect if necessary). Then, if necessary, we could rename the two appropriately and make sure they link to each other in much the same way a music discography moves through albums in order via an album's infobox. We can rename pages later if we need to in order to eliminate the redundant title (it's now May, not February). As for where to go from here: if we take a break as opposers to PC above have stated, that will merely support their view that PC should not and cannot be implemented. The best thing to do now is to seek a way forward. In other words, we should take all the guidelines and evaluate them. Clearly a new page is required for this task. After we get guidelines that everyone involved can agree with (if that's even possible), we can propose it to the community. Perhaps that will give those not as invested a chance to stop thinking about it and approach it with a fresh perspective. Don't get me wrong; I will always support PC, because I have seen it work. We just need to ensure we have a better system for using it as there were things that I also found needed changing. CycloneGU (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "if we take a break as opposers to PC above have stated...", I am a supporter of PC and I think there should be a break. Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not specifically mean you. CycloneGU (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a break would be a good idea. Not necessarily a long one, but a break nonetheless. In the interim, we should archive the last phase and use Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 to summarise the whole conversation. This would include:

1. A brief background section
2. A summary of each phase
3. A list of things people have suggested for what to do next.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Let's take a break. We'll see clearer on how to proceed after a while and the community is too tired of discussing PC at the moment. We'll also have less active editors in July/August. So I'd suggest to prepare a compromise proposal with usage policy in August-September, and a community consultation on it in September-November. Cenarium (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  I should further clarify my above post. I do not want to take a break from developing PC into something that the community can widely accept. I do note that an end has been brought to usage of PC, however, for the time being, thus forcing a break in usage of PC. While there is no clear method of its continued use determined for the future, we are taking a break from using it. Perhaps a break in the wide public discussion is a good idea and we can have some talk page discussions while developing a proposal at a somewhat less public page (though equally accessible), and I of course want in on that project. Cenarium's timeframe of a compromise proposal for August gives us a few months to work out the flaws in the system, and both supporters and opposers alike who have an interest can help develop a proposal. I would have said two months is enough, giving July, but I realize there are only a few days after two months from right now and it's August, so I do think trying to propose again in August is viable. However, whatever led to the trial not having a proper ending before (I recall it was still being newly added to articles in April, in fact) shouldn't occur again, and I would hope a clause for continuing it past September where it seems to be the best solution [i]on a per page analysis[/i] be permitted in certain cases. perhaps including the two pages that Scott was so concerned about. Of course, if pending changes works much better this time around, it may not be necessary to do this and we can have it finally implemented fully. As for the way to do the future trial, I'm open to suggestions. CycloneGU (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm against the idea of another trial. We've already tried it out and know basically how it works. We need to go all-in on something, even if its pretty limited. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  I support seeking a consensus to turn PC (possibly with modifications) back on for good. I strongly oppose any further trials. There is zero reason for anyone to believe that this or any other trial will end when promised. Nobody in authority has stepped up to the plate and announced that allowing a trial to continue without consensus will no longer be allowed, so we have to assuume that voting for a "limited time trial" is actually voting for a "trial" that never ends. Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Even with such a guarantee I don't see the value in switching it on for a couple of months. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  TBH, I think the reason it went on - and on, and on, and on - is because no one bothered to do the work to remove PC from everywhere on August 16. It wasn't causing any damage and there were better and more important things to do, like modifications to an article on Britney Spears, or reviewing AfDs, and so on. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that if another trial were to be proposed, it must be clear who is going to be in charge of removing it when it's over; in other words, oversee the trial. If a trial is not preferred even with such guarantees, then yes, we must seek a way to allow PC to be turned on permanently. Failing to do so lets down the community, especially when sensitive BLP articles are unable to take advantage of it. What BLP will next appear in The Wikipedia Signpost as being part of a legal threat? CycloneGU (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. If a specific person or group of people is assigned to end a trail before a specified date - with defined sanctions to be applied if they fail to do so - a trial would be acceptable. Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hell no on another trial. After a short break(no more than a month or two), we'll need to write up permanent guidelines on when to use and when not to use PC and get that going as an RFC. Ideally that will be the final step. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. I was speaking of trials in general. Another PC trial? No thanks, just had one. Pretty much everybody has had their fill of PC trials.. (smile) Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits to the page

Hi Yaris, I couldn't see why you were overwriting the RfC page, so I've reverted. Can you say what your aim is? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slim,

I was archiving the third phase of the RfC, as discussed above. I think all three phases of the RfC should be given equal prominence, now that they are all closed. Summarising each one, as I was trying to do, seemed like the fairest way to do that.

It is a slightly confusing situation, having a multiphase RfC, but I guess we just have to make the best of it.

Yaris678 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The archive of the third phase is Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3.

However, after you restored the page, Brad added some important comments to the bottom of the third-phase page. These should obviously be left there for a while, rather than archiving them immediately.

Slim, can I ask why you made this change? Template:Pending changes May 2011 is used on a number of pages. If you should probably edit it directly. Was the issue that the template now points to the archived version of phase 3? That can be undone.

Yaris678 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made two changes to Template:Pending changes May 2011. Unless anyone has any objections, I will restore it to the page. Yaris678 (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You removed the RfC entirely and wrote over it, so I reverted. It's fine to add to the page, but the RfC and people's posts about it should remain in place. That was my only concern. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I said about it being a multiphase thing and the third-phase (the one currently on the page) having been archived?

Anyway, think I've sorted out all the tamplating stuff.

I still think we should archive and summarise at some point, but lets give Brad's comments some time.

Yaris678 (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It was this latest RfC (or latest phase, if you prefer) that was decisive, and which led to action, so in my view we should treat it as we do any other RfC, and just leave it on the page, along with the closing admin's remarks.

One of the problems with the trial is that no one could work out what was going on because there were so many pages, and it was all very hard to follow. I'm opposed to any more refactoring in part for that reason. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The third phase may have been decisive, but it was only decisive about the short-term issue. The RfC as a whole is about the wider issues of PC. What people said in phases one and two will have more import on the longer-term issues of PC.

The third phase was only started so that we could get the short-term issue out of the way and so discuss the longer-term issues in a more calm manner. Leaving the page as it is gives the false impression that this RfC was all about the short-term issue.

Summarising the RfC as a whole will make it easier to follow, not harder. We should, of course, link to archived versions of each phase, so that the detail is not lost.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to link to the first two phrases at the top of the page if you want to. But this latest RfC ought to be left in place so it's easy to find and read. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see that's already done, so that's good. People can read each phase now for themselves. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I like what you've done in bringing together all the closing statements.

Perhaps all we need to do to address my concerns about loosing the other phases is to expand on the ambox currently summarising the RfC at the top of the page. I think that the endorsement of positions thing has a lot of valuable stuff in it that people might not realise is there if they see "The second phase was endorsements of positions, the analysis of which is available here." But if we add a bit more info it might tempt people to click though.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. My concern throughout this trial was that there were so many pages that discussions got lost, so there was no sense of continuity or progress. We all seemed to be saying the same things over and over. Providing links to it all in one place would be very helpful. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Another thing to consider is that, at times, the discussion bounced back and forth between project and talk page, with no clear delineation between the two. Late in the game, some discussion was moved onto a talk page, but I was looking back through histories and archives the other day and found it very difficult to follow the course of the thing—and I say that as someone who followed this rather closely since February and who was responsible for (to blame for?) one instance of archiving several weeks ago. In any event, the talk pages are an essential part of the puzzle here. Rivertorch (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added a summary of the discussion to the top of the page, keeping Phase 3 intact on the same page. This summary includes links to the relevent talk pages at each stage. I think that will help with the issue you identify, Rivertorch.

I think the only slightly confusing issue now is that one of the archived talk pages has a discussion of a phase 3 that never happened. We decided to have the short-term-use proposal instead-of/before it.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just changed Archive 3 to be a redirect to phase 3 on the non-archived page. Yaris678 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Phase 3 should be permanently archived at Archive 3. The first two phases are archived at Archive 1 and Archive 2 already, and keeping Phase 3 on the main RFC page gives it more prominence than the first two phases. Closure should be the thing getting the most prominence, then the rest can be viewed at a user's leisure (given they have some 2 days to read it all). CycloneGU (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

While I am happy with the current version of the page, I am inclined to agree with CycloneGU. But let's see if SlimVirgin has any thoughts on the issue, before we archive again.

Yaris678 (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not happy with it. I would ask rather if SlimVirgin has any reason why the discussion below should NOT be archived. If we're summarizing two phases of the RfC and linking out, then all three should be treated the same way. It also helps from a server load time perspective, something which came up in discussions during a period that Wikipedia sought donations. Having less on this page reduces server load on this page, and PC has taken more than its fair share of server load in three months of discussions. Let's properly archive Phase 3 like the others, then those interested in seeing further information can do so. CycloneGU (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly gone ahead and rearchived the page, the way it should be. We have an issue, however. Whioever archived the talk page discussions has archived them such that they are connected either to a non-existant project page or, as archive 3 is now an example, to the wrong talk page archive. This needs to be fixed, so I'll potter about with it. CycloneGU (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I've figured this out. The Phase 3 talk page is now at Archive 3's talk page, and 4-5 are blanked. They may be deleted once we agree they are no longer necessary. CycloneGU (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okey doke. If you happy to move things around in the archives then I think there are a number of things in Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3 that should be in Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 2. Especially, the stuff that is about the proposed questionnaire phase. Yaris678 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just made that move. Specifically, this and this. Yaris678 (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was gone all day yesterday and didn't check in until now. Kinda sucky result to the day, I now know I'm going to have to lose a tooth. But that has nothing to do with this. CycloneGU (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer user right removal

I'm tempted to RFC removal of the user right 'reviewer' from all users.

I think that any future discussion of any form of PC will run into problems with who has the right; it was dished out willy-nilly with no specific requirements in place.

To move onwards and upwards - to have meaningful chat about who should be a 'reviewer' - I think we need to get rid of all existing ones.

Comments?  Chzz  ►  22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd suggest removing reviewer rights from everyone who doesn't have rollback. That keeps a good stock of people with the user right and it seems highly unlikely that users with rollback won't be allowed to keep their reviewer rights. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have either, and neither should anyone else. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any advantage to doing this. While PC is not in use, the right is useless, but harmless. However, if you remove it now, and PC is adopted for regular use later (which seems likely to me), then you create a bunch of needless make-work for admins. I'd view it as a pointy, bureaucratic-minded decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you guess how I view your opposition to the removal of a right that no longer exists in practice? I'll give you a clue; none of the words consist of more than four letters except for an odd "-ing" to help ease the flow. How desperately some fight to keep such "rights". Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Iron Law of Institutions hard at work. See also RFA and Arbcom reform. TotientDragooned (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason I've suggested letting people with rollback keep the right is because I think that its highly likely pending changes will be implemented in some form, even if that's just for articles which would otherwise have to be indefinitely semi/fully protected. So removing it from users unnecessarily is just going to create extra admin work that isn't necessary.

Having a reasonable group of users with the power on day one means that you can move over a reasonable number of articles to pending changes on day one without having to rush people through approval, or creating a backlog, or having to be extremely conservative about how many articles you add it to initially within the group - all of which seem bad to me.

Unless there is some good reason why rollback users won't be generally trusted with review powers there doesn't seem any reason to take it away from them, taking it away from other users is a simple was to allay the fear that it may have been handed out inappropriately. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd generalize that: unless there is some good reason why that individual editor shouldn't be trusted with "review powers" when/if PC is adopted at a later date, then there doesn't seem any reason to spend our limited resources making any changes to that individual editor's account.

I'm sure Malleus can understand why I think this proposal little more than an effort to put up a needless barrier to re-starting use of PC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I can indeed see why you might be so reluctant to give up any of your precious user rights. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you might want to start with a clean sheet, but I can also see a case for evolution rather than revolution. Either way, there is potential for drama on the issue. Let's try to calmly state the reasons for and against the idea before starting an RfC.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it comes down to three options:

1. Remove the reviewer right from all editors.
2. Remove the reviewer right from all editors except for some group of trusted users — perhaps those with rollback or autoreview.
3. Leave it alone until a policy is in place about qualifications for reviewer rights.

I can see both side of the argument. It was handed out willy-nilly, but if PC is restarted in some form, it would be good to have a pool of reviewers available, and these are people who ostensibly actually wanted to review. Unless we somehow archive who were the reviewers before complete removal, we lose that information and perhaps make somebody do a lot of work to restore it, if that's the ultimate decision. So, I'm leaning towards option 2 in the long term, but option 3 might make sense for now — PC discussion will soon be starting up again and we can talk about it then. In the meantime, it's not really hurting anything to leave it as is. Mojoworker (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And to think I was just about to un-watchlist this page in the belief that it had stopped being interesting! I think, indeed, that the reviewer flag was given out far too casually last time (not to me, of course!), and any reinstatement of PC will require that the people who can make decisions be responsible people. Absent that, the intent of using PC to aid our BLP policy will be made a mockery by mindless acceptance of edits. Since, as of today, the reviewer flag confers absolutely nothing, and it won't until such time as PC comes back, my advice would be to go back to being boring here. In other words, removing the flag is a solution in search of a problem (for now). But, and this is important, proposals for PC rebirth are going to have to have a clear plan as to who will or will not be able to review pending edits, and the qualifications are going to have to take into account a serious regard for BLP concerns.

Yaris, very sensibly, has asked here for calm suggestions about how to, in effect, formulate such a plan. My suggestion: when PC comes back, all reviewer flags get removed at the start (otherwise, there will simply be too many "children" to weed out), and we set up, as last time, a process for users to request to be reviewers, with the right determined by administrators (as rollback is). In this case, users who are to be made reviewers must (1) have a degree of trust as editors comparable to what we expect of rollbackers, and (2) demonstrate, further, an understanding of BLP (we will need to figure out how exactly that understanding would be demonstrated). No one should be made a reviewer unless they ask to be (a big difference from what happened before!). There also needs to be a mechanism for removal of reviewer rights when those rights are misused. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes no sense; leave the right in place until it's activated again and then remove it? Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus. You are assuming that it will be activated again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I make no such assumption, in fact I assume that it was such an unmitigated disaster last time around that it won't be, at least not in the same form. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good for you! And you should really see what I just said at a certain RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The disaster was primarily due to flaws in the software which meant it couldn't cope with the high traffic pages for which it was intended. It's entirely possible someone will come up with a version that works. Regarding "leave the right in place until it's activated again and then remove it", this isn't that uncommon in the real world; some places are strewn with families who retain meaningless titles of some kind just because there's nothing to be gained by removing them, but if the titles were to be given some kind of authority they'd be thoroughly winnowed. (If the UK for some reason decided to restore voting rights to the hereditary peerage, there'd certainly be some kind of mass deselection before they let the assorted "seventh son of Lady Grimley-Fiendish" chinless wonders into Parliament.) – iridescent 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It was ill-considered and poorly implemented if that's what you mean. But we are already seeing these (in this case inactive) rights touted as a reason to trust an editor at RfA for instance. Removing this one may go a small way to restoring some sanity in that god-forsaken slough of despond. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're making this a bureaucracy. Rights should be removed after a screw-up (but then, yeah, really remove them fast, not some other process with file, appeal, argue, re-file, and whatnot). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've requested removal of the right for myself, I still think its reasonable for people with rollback to generally keep reviewer status. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? Malleus Fatuorum

If you insist on removing, then remove it from everyone. But again, I don't see the point in removing it from anyone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the argument that people only want to keep reviewer rights for themselves if they think some people should keep it becomes far weaker when the person making that point doesn't have the user-right. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to me then I'd suggest that you educate yourself. I was offered the right but refused it, as I refuse to have all other rights in the present climate. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

At least in my case, the "why?" was not "why did you have yours removed?", but rather "why should people with rollback keep it?" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'd completely support removing the reviewer group now, since it is useless. Its only use now is for people to have the "I'm a reviewer!" userbox on their page, which really isn't a good reason to keep it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No sense in taking the right from Rollbackers, Autoreviewers, and other users who did many good reviews only to give it back to them when we re implement PC. Take it from all others though, that should mediate the Willy-Nilly. Ronk01 talk 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The flaw in your argument is that you believe without proof that Rollbackers and so on did indeed do "many good reviews", just because they had some other unassociated user right(s). I could review all of you reviewers to Hell and back, but I don't want your shiny baubles. Ajraddatz is quite right. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC

But your argument is flawed in that it is based purely on following bureaucratic procedure. Wikipedia is not an Anarchy, or a Bureaucracy. And remember, rollback is given only to trusted users, so why should we assume that their reviews would be anything less than acceptable? 00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)