Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:57, 18 March 2011

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

Reset done

Ok, the reset is done. In the interest of a "clean slate" this page has been archived. If there were discussion that need to be re-opened please start a new thread here and link to the archived discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reject vandalism only" section should include BLP violations as well. Otherwise, nobody will ever endorse such a view. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that is a problem. There are enough issues where BLP and nonBLP issues are conflated. Protonk (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A view not being endorsed by anyone is not necessarily a problem anyway. We're trying to find consensus here, if a view is not supported by a single person then we can safely assume we have consensus on that point. Of course anyone is free to add new views as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the large number of sections, might it perhaps be a good idea to number them consecutively, especially to distinguish the large number of "users who agree with" sections? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I do think there should be a 'users who do not endorse this position' list as well per section. Subject to the same limitations of briefness as support of course. Despite being negative, a negative position can still lead to consensus. But yeah, whatever you think is best I guess. More importantly, some sections are also worded ambiguously. e.g. Can't decide if supporting PC creates a "class system" means I support creating a new class system or if it means I agree with the assertion that it creates a new class system.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I figured the part about "further dividing users into levels and increasing the perception that WP is an insider club or a game" implied that the supposed class system was a bad thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok gotcha.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sound like I'm making too many suggestions, but perhaps it might also be good to revise the watchlist page announcement to indicate that a new phase has started. Many users may have, understandably, tuned out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to retain a section for "view from person XYZ", but I don't begrudge your reseting the page. The original page was a hot mess. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New views may be added by anyone. We could introduce a new section at the bottom for "individual views" if that would help. @Trypto, I actually meant to do that and forgot, I'll get on it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should firmly move past purely personal views, such as the "View by X user" that a usual RfC has. People should be able to add new aspects to the list, but going back to opinion pieces rather than a list of actual issues will hurt progress towards consensus. Steven Walling at work 04:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who support this new discussion format

The fullest support My76 Strat 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (moved from main RFC page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Much much saner. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 21:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amen! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big improvement. Revcasy (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps the argument to a minimum and allows all to have their voices heard. I like it. Cliff (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "Jimbo has decreed it therefore it is a fact" issue.

I have asked him to comment here to clarify this matter, but keep in mind he's a very busy man with a newborn baby, so it may take some time to get a reply. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just link to WP:JIMBOSAID and call it a day. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We had this whole problem back in the last poll too. I'll just write a short message here because we already discussed it at the talk page of that poll. Users are saying that Jimbo supports PC and therefore we have to have it. Technically, Jimbo, along with the Foundation, is allowed to overrule community consensus. However, Jimbo has never said this is what he wants to do, instead he's always said he thinks it's a decision that is up to consensus. The Foundation have also seemed to be leaving it up to the community (by requiring we actually let them know where we want to go from here). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider it an option for the Foundation to overrule whatever consensus comes out of this RfC. There are things we logistically can and can't do, but it's up to you all to decide what we should do. Steven Walling at work 04:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so happy with the new format

I appreciate the excellent intentions in cutting through this, but I am not sure this enforced multi-polling is the best approach. My primary concerns are;

There is much use of the term "PC", but the term itself can refer to many different things. For example, that makes the assertion "PC reduces vandalism" quite meaningless, and impossible to merely 'endorse'
The format lends itself to people seeming to 'support' when all they are doing is agreeing. For example, "PC drives away new users" - I suppose I would have to 'agree' with that assertion; I'm sure it does drive some away. However, it may also encourage other new contributors.
Several of the assertions are too vague to be of practical benefit. "PC should continued to be used" - my own answer to that, and to many other questions, would be: it depends. It depends how it would be used, under what remit, and so on
Endorsement of claims gives no opportunity for others to dispute them. So yes, we might get 100 people 'endorsing' a statement, and thus it appears to have huge support - but there could be 200 people who do not 'endorse' the claim, and we'd never know

My main concern is - despite all best intentions - the sheer numerical 'support' will be used as ammunition to claim there is clear support for things...when there is not.

I absolutely appreciate that this is a hugely difficult discussion to manage, but I have serious concerns about reducing it to this format - because it discourages discussion and elaboration, and encourages jumping on bandwagons; it lends to 'sound bite' generalizations and leading questions, without sufficient clarity to determine what people are actually endorsing.

Maybe this is a generational concern, but I find it impossible to state my views on this complex and vital issue in "140 characters or less". Chzz ► 03:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's the price of organized discussion. We had difficulty managing a free discussion (as I predicted), so we needed a method of organizing it. Ronk01 talk 03:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz, you are more than welcome to add your own view if you don't feel adequately represented by what is already presented. What I've tried to do is chop the issues up into small parts so we can see where we have common ground, and where we do not. The free-for-all that the previous format became was never going to result in any clear decisions. And of course threaded conversation is still perfectly fine here on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this is not a vote, but something more like a market research study, something with radio buttons with "strongly disagree", "disagree", somewhat disagree", neutral", "somewhat agree", "agree", and "strongly agree", might have been better. – SMasters (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An actual survey (with a concise explanation of PC plus examples for those who might not have encountered it yet in their editing) would actually help in addition to this discussion, imo. Actively reach out to the editors in Wikipedia who aren't here but will still potentially be affected by the issue. Much more so if its eventual implementation is wider than is originally proposed.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 07:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict} I'm conflicted. The page that's now archived was bloated and awkward and growing worse by the hour, but the new one is deeply problematic in its own way. Some of the stated views suffer from oversimplification or vagueness (perhaps mine included). I'm finding that I think I'd like to endorse more of those views but am not quite sure that the editors who wrote them meant exactly what I think they meant. Adding additional views with similar but clarified wording risks adding redundancy and bloat to the new page, so I hesitate to do that. I also am finding the repeated use of The L Word a stumbling block in areas where I'm sure I could otherwise find common ground with other editors. Rivertorch (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that, as something intermediate between a totally unstructured discussion and yet another poll, I really love the new format. Having the views and options laid out for people to comment on is much better, as opposed to making people wade through a ton of threads to try and distill the actual constructive issues at hand. It's all going to be long on a topic this old and important, so we might as well structure it like this rather than just a regular talk page. Steven Walling at work 04:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I think that no format can be all things to all people. Any attempt to impose some structure on the issue (apart from a yes/no debate overall) might be an improvement. Either way I don't really long to return to the previous format. Protonk (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox (and remember, please, I do absolutely appreciate your work on this) I know I could add my view, but, my problem is this: I think we should get consensus to remove it, and then see if we can get consensus for some kind of carefully limited trial or implementation (possibly after some people have had time to formulate specific clear proposal/s to put to the consensus). What I find impossible is, to discuss all these issues at the same time. For example: we're discussing what the criteria for a 'reviewer' should be. But, currently, we have 5000+ of those - active, right now. And how can I opine on what the prerequisites for a reviewer should be, unless I know what they'll be reviewing? We don't know what their 'job' is...whether it is simply to revert vandalism, or whether they are expected to check the sources before accepting. It's all "what if" questions. I hope that example is clear enough; if not, I can elaborate. It is only an example of the type of problem I have here. Chzz ► 06:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also welcome comments regarding my other points. Specifically,and again by example: if you put a view that == Marmite tastes good == and 100 people "endorse" that, you still have no idea how many people hate it; how can you evaluate the results? Chzz ► 06:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I originally posted was a mix of views in a sort of point-counterpoint format. As more views are added that has gotten muddier and much less obvious. People seem to be adding new views if an existing one didn't perfectly match the way they would have stated it. I've actually already started thinking about a third phase. If anyone remembers this I'm thinking we might do something like that again after this phase has run its course. That would give users a chance to clearly express their views on various aspects once again. Once that's done we just need to figure out who is responsible for going through all three "phases" and evaluating the results. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one misgiving about this format. Users who do not understand that the list of statements can be modified (maybe they think the list was chosen by a bureaucrat), might not return to the page periodically to check new viewpoints and determine whether they endorse those views. This may give undue weight to those viewpoints that were added earlier in the process. Perhaps a ratio of endorsements to amount of time the viewpoint has been posted (or similar metric) would give a better impression than a simple count. Cliff (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the problems I'm having with this system

About the only thing I could "endorse", right now, would be # 3.18 PC should not be used until consensus is gained. All of the other considerations are dependent on what happens with that. I sincerely hope that will happen, and if it does, then we can start to move onward. But if it does not happen...then I have to re-think my views.

If it isn't removed, I have to work out how we can best deal with that unfortunate result - in terms of the existing PC-protected articles, the users who have the permission, and so forth.

I can't evaluate the other matters whilst this "2-month trial" is hanging over our heads.

Well, I suppose I could also maybe endorse "PC is confusing" - although that does depend on what is meant by PC. I could also start a new view thing, saying "These views are confusing" - but I imagine some would find that 'disruptive' or pointy.

new sections

I agree with Chzz, some of the questions seem either loaded or just unanswerable.

Is it allowed to add questions? Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say add questions here. Since the format is limited to presenting and endorsing views there is no mechanism for back and forth conversation. If we start doing it now it could easily end up just like the last phase. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have had enough of that for the time being, there are options missing imo but I will respect the format, its not there to use pending on the 50 000 least watched BLP articles and some users have expressed support for such usage, the closest option currently is use on all BLP articles which is over a million articles. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some questions - I can't imagine that they should be prohibited for anyone, since no one appointed an Official Questioner before the page was blanked and restarted. Wnt (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the various reasons I tried to explain in the above sections, I do not, currently, feel able to participate on the newly-formatted RfC page. I emphasize my gratitude to Beeblebrox for attempting to rationalize things, but I strongly suggest, before deciding on any "3rd phase" or whatever, any such ideas are discussed here first.

I will continue to watch the debate, and I hope if things progress to a format where I can respond meaningfully to things, instead of just "ENDORSE", then I will again be able to participate in the discussion. Best, Chzz ► 22:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Nobody appointed an official questioner? No of course they didn't. What did happen was that I suggested this new format here, it was discussed, nobody raised any objections, and so I did it. If people aren't going to respect the new format and just ignore it then we might as well go back to the ungodly useless clusterfuck we had before. I don't even see what you are talking about, what questions did you add? Again, anyone can add a new view to be endorsed, that is the whole point and is encouraged. Threaded discussion should be done on here. No, I'm not the boss of this thing, but we did discuss this here for a few days before it was implemented and no objections were raised. I'm trying to keep this from becoming another useless mess and ask that you please respect the current format. I am already working on a third phase based on the old RFA review/recommend procedure from a few years ago where users will each answer a series of questions and make any proposal they wish without any limitations. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it discussed? I did see on AN, and commented [1] - but nothing came of that. Chzz ► 05:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I now see that there was indeed a discussion, on this talk page - which is now in Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011/Archive_1.

I had no idea that this discussion took place. I would imagine. as I think I'm one of the most involved editors, that if I did not know, then others might not either.
Beeblebrox's assertion that "this issue has got to be settled" was 03:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC). The "reset done" message is timestamped 21:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC). That does not indicate much discussion, to me. Chzz ► 05:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about the change, and I support it. I would have supported an even simpler option, too: A poll (yes, an actual poll) that says "Yes, let's keep Pending changes turned on indefinitely, and use it (exact details to be sorted later)" vs "No, make the devs turn the whole thing completely off, indefinitely, starting right this minute."

The previous format had basically zero chance of resolving the dispute. This at least has a chance. Some diehards on either side will still claim 'no consensus for that!' on any point that is decided against them, but I think that the rational people in the middle have a chance at seeing and evaluating other people's views this way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editors which you would consider "diehards" and which "rational" is undoubtedly coloured by your own opinions, and which editors agree with them. I imagine that some of my own views do not lie in the middle, but that surely does not mean they are unworthy of fair consideration. Chzz ► 22:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe there are diehards on either side. Unless the decision is 100% win/100% lose—unless there is no compromise whatsoever—then I expect diehards on both sides to be whingeing that the absence of their personally preferred implementation is somehow anti-consensus. If there is zero compromise, then I expect twice as much complaining from half as many people (and very possibly with more justification). There are no solutions that will end the complaining, and in values-driven issues like this, "there's no consensus" is frequently nothing more than a code phrase for "Waah, you're not doing it my way!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand this. Are you saying that, if we are unable to get a consensus, we should instead fall back to a vote? Chzz ► 04:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

looking ahead

To a possible third phase. Not right away, probably a few weeks in the future. As I mentioned above my idea right now is to model it on the RFA Review/Recommend phase from 2008. This used a neat trick where each participant created their own subpage and responded to questions at whatever length they desired. I've started knocking together the bare bones of such a page for this RFC but I'm waiting to see what happens in this phase first and obviously it would be better if the crafting of the actual questions was a collaborative process.

How I am imagining this will work is that when whatever period we determine to be appropriate for that phase has concluded ~~we go ahead and have the damn poll that so many users seem to want as well.~~(actually this shouldn't be needed if we follow the plan for phase three) When that is complete we need to determine which persons (this is too big of a decision to leave to one closer) would be responsible for evaluating all four phases and determining what consensus can be drawn from the combined content of the various phases. Everything from the day this opened to the day it is closed will given equal weight, no one phase will mean any more than the other three.

I seem to recall that Steven Walling suggested a ways back that perhaps we more or less "impanel a jury" to do this. I think that might work. I would suggest that five persons be selected. Not so small that one person is making the decision, not so big that it will split into entrenched factions, and an odd number will hopefully prevent a stalemate, although of course they would not be voting. I realize this is largely uncharted territory, but we are in a somewhat unique situation here that calls for a creative solution. No approach will satisfy absolutely everyone, but I imagine this will come pretty close. Thoughts? Remember we have time to work the kinks out of this, I expect it will take at least another month to arrive at a conclusion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, before we implement a new form of discussion, we should agree how it could possibly be evaluated.

That is my core issue with "phase 2" - how do we conclude anything from it?

I also have this huge stumbling block, in that it is extraordinarily difficult to discuss whether or not enwiki should implement PC in some form whilst it is being used right now, without consensus. I may have mentioned that before; apologies for repetition. Chzz ► 05:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Chzz, but clearly that is an issue you are having and it is not affecting the other users who have participated here. We all know that PC is on right now, and that the trial was supposed to have ended some time ago. I can understand why you think it is wrong, but I don't see how it is actually actively preventing you from even discussing things. I'm also not sure why you think it will be impossible to determine any consensus from this format. We use this format at user RFCs and seem to be able to draw conclusions from it there. Wasn't it you who told me this wasn't going to be easy? The hardest part of the whole thing is going to be the close, but I don't believe it will be impossible.

I don't believe the objections to the new format are strong enough to merit scrapping it already. Dozens of users have had no problem participating in it. On the other hand I agree it is important to discuss what we do next, which is why I pitched my idea for phase three. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think that having a service turned on prevents people from discussing it. The complaint seems irrational to me: We discuss user behavior at RFC/U and ANI without demanding that users stop behaving during the discussion; we discuss articles at AFD without demanding that the articles stop existing during the discussion; we discuss disputes at ArbCom without issuing topic bans during the discussion; we discuss improvements to the RFA process without demanding that RFA be suspended during the discussion; we discuss new page patrolling without demanding that NPPers stop patrolling pages during the discussion; and so forth.

Why must PC, alone among dozens of processes, be turned off for people to be able to talk about it? If anything, I'd think that it must be turned on, so that people can personally experience the page load times and interface, to see whether they agree that it is as slow and confusing as some people have claimed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't as though having the service on prevents us from discussing it. The "turn off then discuss" objection has two parts. First is the objection to the continued use of PC as a perpetual trial. We can quibble over the merits of that objection but it isn't anywhere near as nonsensical as you are making it out to be. Second is the objection that having the service on presents a status quo bias in favor of its continued use. Here again you can complain that turning the service off will have the opposite effect (it will) and the complaints are a bit of working the ref. but neither of these quibbles delegitimizes the whole position. Protonk (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) -so this was written before I read what Protonk added, and is in response to WhatamIdoing's comment

I can discuss it, even though it remains on - and indeed, I did, in the previous incarnation of the RfC page itself. In doing so, I put aside my firm conviction that I believe the trial must end, and I tried quite hard to objectively discuss possible implementations - yes, that's fine.

Where I struggle is, in the new format, in endorsing various suggestions where my view is dependent upon whether or not it is left on. If the trial was ended (PC removed from all articles), then I would suggest planning towards a fresh implementation, with carefully-agreed remit, scope, duration, etc. If, however, it is not removed, then I have to reconsider my opinions in that light; there's no point in my considering the best way forward if it is a 'done deal'. I hope that makes it clearer? I'm really not trying to be awkward. Chzz ► 21:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, those are not the only objections to current use - there are others, including the concern that, right now, administrators are making all kinds of judgement-calls in applying or removing PC, with no clear policy - and those edits are being reviewed with no clear policy on reviewing (and who can review) - and, we have no idea what affect the PC is having on confusing new editors. There are more reasons, but I use this to illustrate that it is not merely the points you stated; I just want to make it clear that this is not a bunch of stubborn folks saying 'turn it off' to make a point, as some seem to think. Chzz ► 21:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how else to say this. The goal of this entire process is in fact to end the trial period, which we all agree has gone on far longer than agreed upon. The focus is deliberately on what to do next, not what we could have already done better. It is not a done deal. The outcome of this process can and should dictate what happens next, and the option to remove PC and be done with it is very much still on the table. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I have not made myself clear enough; I am not on some campaign to "remove PC and be done with it". I advocate removing it for now and then evaluating possible further trial/s and/or implementation. Chzz ► 22:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also surprised at your saying [t]he goal of this entire process is [..] to end the trial period - but I suppose you mean, to reach a conclusion one-way or the other? The phrasing is a bit misleading, that's all. And in looking at that, I just noticed that the 'purpose' on top of the RfC had actually been removed; I have put it back there. Chzz ► 22:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are other objections to PC, but the two I mentioned are the only ones which are inseparable from the "turn off after the trial" issue. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; I'm sorry if I have been unable to explain clearly enough why, in fact, those arguments are directly related to the need to turn it off, right now. I'm not sure I can make it clearer, and perhaps we just have to agree to disagree. Chzz ► 22:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, as far as I'm concerned, the non-randomized interventional trial to compare PC against semi-protection ended on the originally specified date, and the feature has been in actual service ever since.

The results of the trial are these:

Pending changes, compared to semi-protection, allows (on average, per article per month) about 5 permissible edits by anons and prevents about 10 impermissible edits by anons from being shown to readers and or indexed by search engines. It does this at the cost of a delay of about an hour or so, and about ten seconds' work by a trusted user per edit.

Another IMO interesting result was that 20% of articles, some of which had been semi-protected for years (and some of which were in PC only briefly), received zero edits by unregistered users, suggesting that they probably didn't need to be protected any longer.

I don't see any need to disable the feature to stop the trial: trials are when you collect data, not when you use a tool. The trial is over when you stop collecting data, not when you turn the tool off. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure you have some data on this. Protonk (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you therefore please provide the collected data showing that the delay is ”about ten seconds' work”? Chzz ► 04:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phase of decision

It is good to be now in a phase of point-by-point analysis of PC, whose purpose should be to help in the phase of decision.

Now concerning the phase of decision. I think that a way to obtain a proper result is to:

establish through discussion a proposal for a policy for pending changes, detailing how PC should be used
submit the proposed policy to the community at large for consideration
if it obtains consensus, then adopt the policy and if it doesn't obtain consensus, try to establish a new policy taking into account the objections, then return to #2
set a date, for example 31 August 2011, after which in the event none of the successively proposed policies reached consensus, PC should be removed from articles (but the implementation remains on)
set a date, for example 31 December 2011, after which in the event none of the successively proposed policies reached consensus, the implementation of PC should be terminated, with no prejudice to further PC proposals.

Rationale and explanations:

The decision on whether to use PC depends on how we plan to use it, therefore in order to make a decision on whether to use PC, we need to know how it is planned to use it, hence we need to consider a use policy.
It is notoriously extremely difficult to judge consensus when multiple options are available, it is much easier to determine consensus on a particular proposal.
The proposed policy should not be expected to satisfy everyone, it should be a compromise proposal where everyone is invited to comment and specific points decided by consensus, in light of the feedback received in the phase of analysis. This should be regarded the same way as traditional WP policies are proposed.
Limit dates are needed because we as a community cannot indefinitely continue using a tool that has no consensus for being used and no consensus for how to be used, since consensus is our decision-making process (barring intervention by the WMF or Jimbo), and it's really not practical to have a tool for which there's no agreed-upon policy for its use.
There is the important question of how to determine consensus. This could be made through the organization of a poll-discussion, with as suggested a panel of editors to be chosen beforehand making the final determination. They should determine if a consensus exists for adoption of the proposed policy.
The proposed policy can mention a mandatory reconsideration after some time, or only mandate a provisional implementation which requires approval for indefinite use after some time, if desired.
The proposed process takes into consideration the concerns of those who object to the continued use of PC on grounds that it is not supported by consensus (by setting time limits, also please note that regardless of its desirability, the present circumstances make removing PC before discussing its future almost impossible), and those who consider that PC should continue to be used (by giving them ample occasions to make their case to the community, also note that though a strong majority may support use of PC somehow, we clearly don't have a consensus, even majority, on how to use it, so we need to tackle this and for reasons aforementioned this is an issue that is indistinguishable of the issue of whether to use PC at all).

The idea of using userpages to gauge the opinion of editors is interesting, we could do it at the conclusion of this phase and for all the duration of the elaboration of the proposed policy, which should take the feedback into consideration.

We already have a de facto trial 'policy' at Wikipedia:Pending changes (and also a 'guideline' at Wikipedia:Reviewing), we could use it as a base and modify it in lights of the feedback in the phase of analysis and discussions.

I think the next centralized phase of this RFC should be to decide the way to decide the future of PC, so we should at this occasion consider the suggestion I'm making here and others, though we can start discussing on the talk page now. Cenarium (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have had a system implemented for eight months, without consensus. You are advocating a further eight? Chzz ► 04:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating for anything, I'm proposing solutions. You are unhelpful in reiterating that position over and over again, especially to me who agrees with the basis for it, as I emphasized at the time and at various other occasions. But we need to be pragmatic, or we'll be stuck in this limbo forever. Aren't you interested in bringing closure to this matter ? The precise dates are to be agreed upon. Cenarium (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly accuse me of dragging things out, when it is you ~~advocating~~sorry - suggesting - a process that runs for another 8+ months? I, however, am suggesting a solution right now. Chzz ► 19:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you care so much for a date that I gave semi-randomly ? The date are to be agreed-upon later, they should strike a balance between the need to bring closure to an unconsensual use of a tool and the need to give enough opportunities to reach a consensus within the constraints of the circumstances. Saying "this must stop now" is not a solution, it's wishful thinking. Look at the two opposing options on this subject in the poll (PC should not be used until consensus is gained vs PC should continued to be used), it's almost 50/50, we're bound to decide the whole issue with PC on, regardless of our disapproval of the situation. Cenarium (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this is the fallacy of treating things as a vote - which is to be expected.

Secondly - accepting for a moment that it is a vote - that means, there was approval of a two month trial, at the end of which was a 60% approval for temp continuation until December 2010, and now there is, as you say, roughly 50% approval. And you consider that acceptable, for implementation of a major new module? So, we leave it on, just because it is on?

What I had suggested, previously, was working toward some compromise between those two views - a consensus, an agreement - whereby, perhaps, we could have agreed to turn it off for now, on condition that there were definite plans for a further community consensus-agreed trial or deployment of some variety, with precisely determined scope, remit, measurables (again - determined via consensus).

It seems that you are not prepared to even discuss the possibility of switching it off - you have your view, that it must remain on - and therefore you are pushing in that direction alone. Chzz ► 00:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about with a vote, I never mentioned voting, the only thing that matters is that we're in this situation now, so we have to deal with it. Did you even check the link I provided ? I expose you the situation, I give you facts. I don't like those facts, I made this extensively clear, I expressed my very strong disapproval of Jimbo's actions at the time, but we have to deal with them. There's no hope of turning it off before discussing the future of PC, this is it. I hate this situation but it can't be helped. Do you even read what I say ? I don't want this to be on in the circumstances, but this can't be helped. Your last sentence is deplorable, you should take a break then look again at what I'm saying. I am of the view that PC should be off now, but I'm also pragmatic. I'm pushing for bringing closure to this situation in a manner that is as fair as possible to all parties. You say "We could have agreed to turn it off for now", but there is no chance in hell for that to happen, so again this is no solution, just wishful thinking. Now we need to move on, and propose solutions. Cenarium (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote - what I meant was, you pointed out "it's almost 50/50". The current format lends itself naturally to such views. If there is some section (i) with 20 supporting and only 5 supporting what looks like an opposite view, then the tendency is to say "clearly we must do (i)" with no consideration for possible compromise through discussion - which is what consensus is all about.

In this specific case, you are saying that because numerically it is about 50/50, there is no possible way it can be turned off (in the near term). I disagree. I think, if we'd discuss things instead, we might be able to reach an agreement to switch it off very soon - and then put forward further proposals.

Your proposal above, instead, leads to the current shambolic situation continuing until a further 'drop dead date' - and forgive my scepticism in wondering if, when that date arrived, it actually would be removed. We've been there before.

I have read the link, and read your post again, and my last sentence - and it does not seem deplorable. You are saying there is 'no chance in hell', 'no possible way' for it to be switched off. I disagree. I don't think it is wishful thinking. You don't seem to think that is worth discussing. Chzz ► 01:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote, it's a non-binding opinion poll, it's to show you that opinions on removing PC before discussing its future are firmly entrenched and there's almost no hope of compromise. What do you propose, then ? The various discussions we had since the trial didn't permit any advance. Cenarium (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well. 'almost no hope' is better than none. Before the format-change, I'd been vaguely wondering if something like this could possibly work - but I hadn't even got as far as a rough-rough-draft; I actually thought the previous discussions were making progress, and was waiting to see how it went before I even suggested something like that. It might still be possible to arrange something like that, eventually - indeed, eventually - personally - I think that is what will happen; but it might be in a year or so, after trying other things. Chzz ► 17:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't look like a proposal which would be any faster than mine to resolve the situation. Cenarium (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New section

I added a new section because the "improvement over time" offered no competing alternative to endorse and represented a naked logical fallacy. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution would appear to dispute this new section. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the software contains DNA! ;-) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, entropy always wins in the end though :-) Chzz ► 22:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps entropy is the ultimate guarantee but there might be nothing sad about that, thanks for the expansions, but all that is over my head, I had to read the articles to know what was being opined. This is a simple programing tool and as such version 1 is the predecessor of version 2 which is likely a presumed working improvement, this version is currently in action as we speak and no wheels have even been punctured.(imo) After version 2 it would be rude not to assert that there would be a version 3 and that would be another interface beneficial software upgrade. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to assert that PC will get worse over time necessarily, just that it is foolish to claim that as a "simple statement of fact" PC will evolve and improve over time. It's an appeal to magical thinking. My personal objections to PC aside, if the developers chaperone the feature properly it will probably improve over time, but this isn't an iron law. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, my own comments here were a light-hearted rebuttal, a jollity, relief from the angst. Please don't put any interpretation on it. Y'know? A bit of a giggle, a bit of fun? Blowing off steam? Chzz ► 04:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I should have threaded it two spaces in so it was a reply to the first comment, not a general reply. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timely message

The foundation's idea of the topline challenges for wikipedia

Or, you know, we could start making queues for edits. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No means yes

Huh? I do not understand this format at all; fetchcomms said "no" and another agreed; but this is tallied as endosement? Chzz ► 04:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this comment off the !voting page. The section says that a decisions should be made soon. Fetchcomms said that it should be unnecessary to make a decision "soon", because the decision ought to have been made six months ago. Therefore Fetchcomms considers himself in support of "soon", where "soon" is the nearest available alternative for having already done it months ago.

(I assume that you've heard the joke about the impatient employer: "When do you want this done?" "Yesterday!") WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are forming your own interpretation.

In addition, I see many people writing 'Endorse' in many sections are interpreting the headings in many different ways.

I really have no idea what we can conclude from this.

The only conclusions that I can draw are, a) lots of people care about lots of things, b) some people care about some more than others, c) we all want Wikipedia to be better.

I am very disappointed that this process does not allow for any form of discussion. And no - not here - but there, where the other people ENDORSing might actually see it. This is not a consensus-based process at all. Pointing out that the votes were contradictory to the heading was perfectly appropriate. Please consider putting my comment back, where I placed it. Thanks. Chzz ► 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yeah, I meant, I want a decision to be made soon, but really it should have been made six months ago, after the initial trial. So I endorse the "soon", whatever soon is. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't commented in that section yet, I would like to not have to spend additional on this though ...why discuss this when I could be discussing something else? ... are we in a state of constant improvement, so there can be no must be decision day, one day you get a delete decision at AFD and the week later its recreated a bit different...and as they say , there is no deadline? WP:NO DEADLINE - Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting

The following debates can be grouped into a ==Inhibits productivity?== group.

PC drives away new users
Semi-protection drives away new users, PC doesn't
Any tool that inhibits edits by new users will tend to drive away new users
Under PC, more editors can edit
PC will drive away the good and keep the bad
PC will keep the good and drive away the bad
PC means fewer actual editors

Marcus Qwertyus `

Given that users have already endorsed things, we have to be very careful about not adding content to what they have already endorsed, even if it is just a label at the top. We don't know, can't know, whether everyone who already signed would agree. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty neutral header. I don't quite understand where you are coming from. Marcus Qwertyus 22:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also support stability of format so as not to bemuse returning commenters, like I think tryptofish is commenting also. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sufficiently bemused as it is! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, thats cool. Although I am wondering how this will all be evaluated, I am seeing a couple of clear things that are receiving such little support so as we can eliminate those issues and some clarity is appearing through the mist from this format imo. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we'd all discussed that before we'd used this format. As I said elsewhere, I believe the only conclusions we can possibly draw from this is, a) lots of people care about lots of things, b) some people care about some more than others, c) we all want Wikipedia to be better. So where do we go from there? Chzz ► 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in a few more days (whens it closing?) there will be a fair bit to see, like for example at the moment twice as many users think the tool should be harder to get than think the right should be given a freely as previous..and that they want clarification of as regards who is responsible for the content of a post they accept and they seem from the results so far to want the details of how to review expanding on and clarifying and so on....so we can know that when we didn't know that before ans I think there will be a bunch of other outcomes that will enlighten us a bit more about peoples exact worries and not worries, so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me apologize for not making this clearer sooner. This second phase was never intended to be the end of the discussion. My proposal for a third phase involves using what we have learned here to formulate a questionnaire which users will fill out individually on subpages. If it is agreed that we do that, it should be possible based on all three phases to determine a consensus on all the major issues, including the big one of whether to keep it at all. As to how long each phase will remain open, that is something we need to decide here. As far as phase two is concerned, I would say another week or whenever it seems to have run out new participants. Phase three I would say at least two weeks, the more people respond the more data we will have to help us point toward a final close. Who is going to preform that close is another matter we will need to address at some point. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phase three..personal sub page.. Well at least the discussion seems be focusing on the issues at last. Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on the format used in the Wikipedia:RfA Review/Recommend discussion from 2008. If the questions are phrased properly it should be possible, after a lot of reading, to determine a consensus on the major points. Smaller details can be proposed and worked out over time as is normal around here. The goal will be to determine if we keep it at all or not, the basic scope of use if kept, what is expected of reviewers in broad terms, and how it should be applied to BLPs in particular. I'm sandboxing it now, when it's a bit more polished I'll move it to a subpage of this page and we can discuss the specific questions and their wording in detail before it goes live and people start filling it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phase three draft

Ok, I have been working on my idea for a third, final phase of this RFC. Based on the main issues raised in the first two phases I have formulated ten questions. These can be viewed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Review Recommend phase. The idea is that each participant posts these questions to a subpage and adds their own answers. I have designed the questions so that we should come out the other end of the process with clear answers to the most important questions and guidance on some of the less pressing issues. If PC is kept these answers will be the basis of the policy, which can be tweaked as needed in the future. I've been criticized for being unclear in my wording recently so any feedback on the questions is welcome. I stopped when I got to ten because I think we should keep this simple, but what you see there is just a draft I've brought here so we can make sure phase three is ready before we roll it out. The more I think about this, the more I think the third phase should be an entire month. After that a week or so of reviewing the content of all three phases.... somebody.... will have to preform a close. I suggest we begin discussing who that will be as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

You won't be too surprised to hear, I get completely stuck on Q1.

That trial period has now concluded - I'm sure if a Wikipedian who had not been involved in the discussions so far, were to come across that - they'd think PC was not being used.
Do you believe Wikipedia should continue to use Pending Changes in some form, or should it be turned off?

Neither. I think the trial is over, there is no consensus for use right now, and therefore we must remove it. IF that happens, we could discuss possible further implementation. I have no idea how that would go, what it would lead to - a better-planned trial, perhaps. Or some limited implementation in selected cases. We don't know. The statement only gives 2 options; "use it in some form" (presumably, you mean 'now'), or "turn it off". I think there are other options - ie, turn it off (end this 'trial' thing), and then work out if we want to use it in some form or other.

By stating the question as, effectively, "PC - yes or no?" you are forcing people to make a decision that does not need making. Why does PC have to be "all or nothing"?

I hope you understand that point, because I see it is core to this entire issue.

This "IF" means, it is extraordinarily difficult to consider any of the other questions.

For example, Q2 about the standard required for the reviewer right - IF PC is removed (for now), THEN we could usefully come up with an implementation policy which stated requirements and consideration for reviewers.

But, those standards are also dependent on other factors - such as, how PC is to be used. At this stage (answering Q2), we have not established if reviewers are merely supposed to revert vandalism, or if they're supposed to be checking out refs and so forth. So again, we have IF problems.

For Q2: IF PC is to be used to merely decline blatant vandalism, THEN the requirements for getting the flag might be quite low. But IF the reviewer is expected to fully investigate sourcing, THEN the requirements would be much higher. Therefore, until we start to work out how we might deploy PC, I can't answer this one.

Maybe I can illustrate through example;

We're creating a new sort of law enforcement force, called the "sausage police". They will be responsible for checking everyone cooks their sausages correctly. They might be able to arrest people, or they might just give them an informational pamphlet. "Q: What standards should be used to select the sausage police?" - what age restriction; what legal experience; what skill-set? I hope you understand that the only answer is, it depends...

Q3 Re 'does it drive away' - you say, Unfortunately there is no way to acquire hard data on this point - why not? Seriously, why can we not gather such data?

Q4 I have concerns about what the reader will consider to be "BLP articles". Some respondents will no doubt think that this refers to specifically articles about living people. Maybe it does? Others will realise that almost all articles can contain BLP content. I think we need to be very clear on the scope, and if we define it as something like "BLP articles" we run the risk of confusions down the line. For example, I'm sure we'd include Adam Ant. But does it include Adam and the Ants - which contains bio info on Mr. Goddard? How about his works, such as Kings of the Wild Frontier (if we imagine, for the purpose of discussion, that that album had caused some controversy - say, he'd been arrested over it totally hypothetically)? I could think of lots more examples. The point is, that "articles that might contain BLP content" is almost everything on Wikipedia.

This question illustrates what I see as a major problem with this 'Stage 3' process. If I read a users remarks, and realise they are perhaps forming a specific interpretation of 'what is a BLP', it will be hard for me to discuss that problem with the community. There might be 10 'personal views' which all fall into the "what is a BLP" trap. Or other similar interpretation issues. So would I be explaining this point on each?

Q5. OK, this is good stuff; discussing possible improvements. This is the type of thing we ought to be discussing. But taking user views on this alone, in isolation from discussions about scope, is unlikely (IMHO) to lead to a consensus.

I really think you (Beeblebrox) - and all of us - need to give much more thought to how this process can be ultimately evaluated. I can imagine lots of people making lots of great suggestions, but they're going to be overlapping, contradictory, and dependent on other decisions made (ie scope of use of PC).

Q6. Fair enough, except that the phrasing exact purpose of pending changes protection has never been clearly defined is massive understatement.

Q7. be subject to the same restrictions as other forms of protection - it can't be, because other forms are applied only to articles which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (WP:PROT) and, I believe, the intent of PC is to use it in a pro-active way - ie, the suggestions about applying it to some/all "BLP articles", and perhaps especially some that have not been edited in years.

Q8. Generally, when should pending changes be used? [..] Please be as specific as possible. (my bold) - I think this is unlikely to lead to any conclusion. (Similar to the Q4 problems)

Q9. What specifically should be expected of reviewers? - again similar to Q4, I forsee this getting myriad opinions (which will largely be either 'vandal only' or 'thorough check) - as we've already seen indicated in 'Phase 2'. And thus, again, I don't know how this will help us draw conclusions.

If they reject an edit, should they inform the user why the edit was rejected if the reason was something other than obvious vandalism? - this is a somewhat leading question; why would they not inform the user if it was vandalism? Normally, we would.

Q10...well, that is the question which - IMHO - needs to be addressed before bothering with a 'Phase 3'.

I do, sincerely, hope that this post is not seen as obstinate or stubborn. I am just as keen - more keen - than anyone, to sort out this whole mess. I'm starting to feel like these discussions (on this page) are "Chzz v. the world", and wondering whether to drop the whole thing; please please folks, try to consider what I am saying, instead of assuming I'm "The opposition". Because, in this posting, I have tried very very hard to put aside my misgivings about the entire concept of this 'phase 3' thing (which I think is misguided, as I believe an RfC should allow open discussion), and I have tried to put aside my misgivings about the IF thing, and provided feedback on the other questions (despite thinking they're pretty meaningless whilst PC remains turned on). Chzz ► 22:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz, I simply cannot grasp why you think that the question of whether we keep PC at all or not is anon-starter. You have said this a few times now and I really just don't understand what your objection is. The phrasing of the question deliberately leaves open the question of exactly how it will be used. On this one point we absolutely do need an "all or nothing" answer. The whole point of this entire process as far as I am concerned is to answer that question.

Moving on to the other points you have raised: That's a valid point about the phrasing re:the trial period, I'll tweak that to better reflect reality. Many of your other objections seem to be taking the form of what I would expect as answers to the questions. Only the first one is a yes/no proposition, users are encouraged to propose whatever they feel is appropriate. I was already thinking the questions may need to be re-ordered into a sort of logical progression, as it stands there are merely listed in the order in which I thought them up. I'll take a crack at that and then re-address your remaining concerns. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz is entirely correct on Q1. It's frankly astonishing that others are having trouble with this simple logic, so I'll try to explain it in a different way. The fact that Q2 to Q10 exist shows beyond a doubt that PC is unusable in its current form. If no one can even define the proper role of a reviewer, how can we sanction the use of a protection method that is so dependent on reviewers? However, acknowledgment of this simple truth does not mandate that PC be forever scrapped. It is possible to end the trial, address the problems, and then make another attempt, which is our standard way of doing things. The current wording on Q1 does not allow for such a course of action. The often touted promise to fix the problem if we'll just vote to approve permanent usage is unacceptable because my decision on permanent usage is dependent on how the problems are resolved. Forcing people to either accept or reject PC for all time based on the current state of affairs needlessly creates waring factions in our community and is the direct cause of these interminable discussions. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've tweaked the wording of the BLP question, and I've re-ordered the questions. To respond to your other concerns: As far as data on whether new users are driven away by PC, how could we collect that data? How do we ask users that aren't here why they aren't here? How do we even find them in the first place? Moving on, I don't see any problem with getting a myriad of opinion. In fact we've already had a vast variety of opinions presented. When this is over, we should be able to tell which opinions have broad-based support, which have weak support, and which are fringe opinions held by small minorities or single users. Indeed the second phase has already shed some light on this. I don't understand what you propose we do instead, other than reverting back to the horrible unmanageable mess we had before. I'm sorry you feel you are the opposition, I don't see you that way. However I do feel like you are being a bit obstructionist with your insistence on turning off pc before proceeding. If there was consensus support for that I would have done it myself, but it seems you and a very few others are the only ones who support such a precondition. As far as not having open discussion, we did have it. Look at the archive and tell me: what consensus we could draw from that? None that I can see, which is why I eventually pushed the process in this new direction. I think it would be a terrible idea to open another free-for-all discussion as it proved impossible to manage in any meaningful way. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this before, and seem to now have cause to raise it again: there seems to be an utter aversion on this project to collecting actually real data. Of course you can get data on the attitude of new users - you just have to ask them, survey a sample, preferably immediately after they have interacted with a PC protected article and before they drift off and do something else. If all the new users do not respond and are never seen on Wikipedia again, that in itself tells you something, at least in comparison to a control sample. This is what TRIAL is supposed to mean. What have you been doing on this trial for the last four years? SpinningSpark 00:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can a set of questions as complex as what I am seeing in the draft phase 3 possibly be billed as the final stage? You stopped at only ten questions to keep it simple? It is only the final stage when there is a firm and detailed proposal on the table and discussion is solidly around that. If you make this go live I confidently predict that you will get a "wall of text" under each question from which it will be next to impossible to draw any conclusions. I propose that the way forward is to nail your colours to the mast and offer an exact proposal for discussion. Modify that proposal as comments are made to bring in as many participants as possible - that is the only way you are ever going to get consensus on this. SpinningSpark 00:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that adding another twenty pages and ten thousand words and two months of talking is going to be helpful. I believe that we have (or will before long) enough information to answer the most basic questions, right here. All we need is someone with enough backbone to close it one way or the other, knowing that whatever the decision is, a substantial minority of editors will be unhappy with the outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, UncleDouggie - I was beginning to think it was me, just unable to explain something quite simple. You clarified and hit the nail on the head: "It is possible to end the trial, address the problems, and then make another attempt". I'd add "possible to consider, through consensus, to maybe make a further attempt - but, learning from our mistakes, to actually define some scope, and measurable objectives next time.

Thanks, WhatamIdoing. I don't actually think there would be massive opposition, if only we formed a proposal which reflected the consensus - and if we allowed discussion; I'm thinking of some compromise whereby we would remove it, but form a deliberate, clear plan for future reconsideration of PC (possible trial, possible actual meaningful stats) - to meet the key demands of everyone. Something vaguely along the lines of this rough draft, which I did try to mention to Beeblebrox during that couple of days between suggesting 'phase 2' and doing it. I resent the current, vote-oriented non-discursive nature of this RfC. I'd like to see actual comments (the 'C' of RfC), not this pigeon-holed 'ENDORSE' nonsense, where any attempt to discuss is met with vitriolic "That will never work" responses.

Beeblebrox;

Why are you so adamant that we absolutely do need an "all or nothing" answer - why can't we discuss options?
whether new users are driven away by PC, how could we collect that data? How do we ask users that aren't here why they aren't here? How do we even find them in the first place? - these are the questions we should be addressing! I have many ideas, and I'm sure others do. But you know what? We can't discuss them while the thing is being used - because, it is like us !voting that the sun should not rise tomorrow.
I don't see any problem with getting a myriad of opinion - well, I do. How on Earth can we reach a consensus? You are proposing a way of obtaining more and more comments, without any proposed way of reaching a conclusion. Chzz ► 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last poll said "It has been announced that a new version is slated for release on November 9. The community was asked to decide if the current implementation should continue to be used until the release of the new version. This poll is only about that question, and will set no precedent for future use". - So there was only a few improvements and no new version and the foundation said they won't work on it unless they get a clear idea that we want it. Thats is just one of those things, we were waiting for a new version and its not on the way anymore, thats no reason to insist on switching the tool off, just a reason to look at it again and discuss and formulate what we want to do with it and how, like is imo happening in a focused way here now, switching the tool off is pointless while we discuss it is not required at all, the tool is only on less than thousand articles and its working fine. I like Beeblbrox's good work at directing the discussion here, it is going well. The next steps as I see it is in the near future to decide perhaps a couple of experienced closers to formulate comments regarding the main points that have come out of this phase and to start addressing those issue, like asking the foundation legal adviser to answer the legal responsibility question and refining the reviewing how to guide and the other issues and then once a discussion tweaks the phase three format out to press forward with that, I am in two minds about phase three, I have the idea that we have enough detail here to address and then we might have an idea of the scope and usage and detail to present a keep or reject poll to the community with those parameters. Actually imo not only is there no need to switch the tool off, but it would be detrimental to the discussion at least while it is on we can see and use what we are talking about.Off2riorob (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try once again to explain this. Q1 asks if we keep PC in some form or reject it entirely. The foundation and our user base need and deserve an answer to this fundamental question. As I've explained a dozen or so times now, that has been the primary goal of this RFC from the very beginning. If we're not going to address that question then this whole thing is an enormous waste of time. There is no point in asking for improvements or crafting a policy if we aren't going to use it. As I've tried to make abundantly clear, users will be free to suggest that it be de-activated while at the same time adding their proposals for a policy should it be kept. If we're not going to allow that question to be addressed than this has been an enormous waste of everyone's time and effort as that has been the primary goal since day one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake let me add this: if what you think should happen is that we temporarily remove it to be re-worked and try it again later for yet another trial period, all you need do is write that down when filling out your answers to the questions. If enough users make that suggestion then the decision will reflect as much. As I've said, again and again, no option is completely off the table. The goal here is that when this thing is finished we have a rough guide to how PC is to be used. Over time it will evolve into a more solid policy in the normal manner of such things, and can be modified into whatever shape the community desires. Unless what the community desires is to turn it off and be done with it, in which case phase three will essentially be the end of this very, very long process. So, if you want your voice to be heard, add a view now, endorse any views that you agree with, and fill out the questionnaire when it goes live. Your voice will be heard and your comments will be considered when the final decision is made. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's abundantly clear that the proponents of PC interpret "keep using it" as a final decision to use it permanently. You even just stated "when the final decision is made" in reference to the result of Q1. This makes it clear that will be no future opportunity to reject usage if the problems are not adequately addressed. To do what you claim would require phrasing a question such as: Should we keep using PC on the current 1000 articles for the next 60 days while the problems are worked out so we can reach a final decision? Since I'm being forced to make my final decision today, I'm going to vote for turning it off completely at this point. Backing people into a corner isn't a good way to gain support. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, you appear to have decided exactly how this RfC will be conducted, and you are assuming that PC will continue to be used - in saying e.g. The goal here is that when this thing is finished we have a rough guide to how PC is to be used.

The entire questionnaire makes such assumptions.

You still do not understand why I so strongly object to Q1, which asks if we keep PC in some form or reject it entirely.. You said, if what you think should happen is that we temporarily remove it to be re-worked and try it again later for yet another trial period

No. Incorrect. That is not what I think, not at all.

I do not want to keep PC "in some form", nor do I want to reject it.

I think we should remove it, and then we could consider and discuss the possibility of a trial or implementation.

I think that it would be possible to discuss that, and form a consensus to work forward on such a basis.

Can you understand that?

And given that, can you see why it is impossible to answer the other questions? Chzz ► 01:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which

We still need to address the issues of a time frame for moving to the next phase and determining who will be preforming the close. I will be on hand to assist whoever it is in finding everything they need, but I don't see myself as actually being involved in determining a consensus since I have been so involved in the process itself. a "jury" idea has been floated a few times, but discussion always seems to wander off somewhere else. Could we use this new subsection to discuss these specific issues? Please? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the jury idea, this has become far too big for any one person to be able to close alone. But it needs to be uninvolved editors and given the numbers who have taken part, best of luck in finding them. They also need to be experienced, policy-aware editors. I suggest asking for volunteers at WP:ANB and/or WP:EAR. Failing that, send the whole mess to Arbcom. Thick-skinned is also a necessity - any decision is going to generate howls of protest from a large faction. SpinningSpark 00:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a thought, what if we sent this to the crats? They are supposed to be our most trusted users, and have a clinical detachment when evaluating long contentious discussions such as RFA. This seems like it might be right up their alley. 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:BN if they would even consider doing this. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Not a bad idea. Although I assume that a lot of them will consider themselves involved. —W F C— 01:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you do not 'move to phase 3' ie refactor the comments on the RfC until a) there is some agreement to do so, and b) you have formed an idea of how the thing can possibly be evaluated. Chzz ► 01:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz, you know that I respect you and I generally have found you to be a great Wikipedian who routinely goes out of their way to help others, but I feel like you are being needlessly obstructionist in this case. Does anyone else object to the plan for phase three? No offense but it's a given hat there will always be at least one person who does not like any idea. You can't please everyone. As to evaluating consensus, I'm afraid I once again do not understand your concern. It should be significantly easier (although time and effort intensive) to evaluate consensus after these two phases of structured discussion than it would have been if we had simply let the free-for-all continue. Consensus will be evaluated the same way it always is when closing a long discussion, by reading it and comparing the strength of the various positions. We do this at XFD discussions, merger discussions, other policy discussions, content and user RFCs, and so forth all the time. I'm not saying it will be easy, it almost certainly will take a lot of time and effort, but it is not as impossible as you keep suggesting. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object. The first question is loaded to railroad this thing through by tricking users into giving support to permanent deployment even if they merely think that it perhaps might be useful someday if a lot of work is done on the interfaces and policies. Few users will respond with the necessary full page signing statements and if they did, the closer would probably discount such statements because no two would exactly agree. There is no provision for conditional final acceptance, nor should there be because such a course of action would doom us to endless future arguments over whether the conditions had been met. This RfC should be closed and a new one created to find solutions for the serious shortcomings that have been identified. In parallel, a statistical analysis of the trial articles should be performed. This would result in something tangible that we could actually vote on.

If you insist on conducting phase 3, come clean and reword question 1 as: "Do you approve of permanent usage of pending changes as it currently stands, with the currently defined policies, using whatever article selection criteria the community may agree upon?" This does not prevent future refinements to the interface or policies; it just makes it clear that such refinements are not guaranteed and pending changes will remain active even if no changes are made. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, you ask me, Does anyone else object to the plan for phase three?

Please, review the comments.

From the time you suggested the 'phase 3 draft' on 13 March [2] on this page, five users have discussed it.

Four of the five have given specific, reasoned concerns about it - Chzz, UncleDouggie, SpinningSpark, and WhatamIdoing.

The closest to supporting it was Off2riorob - and even xe wrote, "I am in two minds about phase three".

Please reconsider, and listen to what we've been saying here. Chzz ► 08:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have little patience for this navel gazing and wanted a keep reject poll weeks ago, but nevertheless, I think that this proposal and format that Beeblebrox is working with is the first time we are beginning to see the wood for the trees and I urge him to press on, there is a vocal minority that object to pending protection and I respect their views but they are a minority however vocal they are. Off2riorob (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. You guys can have me tarred and feathered after we're done, but stopping and starting over from scratch now is the worst idea I've heard yet. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this point, and this is the last time I will attempt to clarify it. There is never going to be any forward progress if we do not answer the underlying question of retaining PC on some form or rejecting it altogether. This isn't my opinion, it is a fact that was made clear only a few days into this process and I don't know how people who have been debating here for so long still don't get that. The devs are paid for their time and the foundation is unwilling to waste its money paying to further develop a tool if we do not even have a consensus for using it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's now add me, for the first time, to the list of those commenting about it, having now gotten around to reading the draft. I appreciate what Beebelbrox is doing. It seems to me that there are two principal things we could do next. One would be a straight up-or-down poll on whether to (a) continue with PC, or (b) shut PC down, end of menu. The other would be to try to bring some focus to the present phase two results, before moving on to what might be a yes-or-no phase four. I think the proposal here is a reasonable approach to the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be extremely difficult to determine a consensus from the RFC alone, and may not allow us to determine precisely how we should use PC. This RFC is very useful in that it allows us to clarify various points and better analyze PC but in order to obtain a definite outcome, we need both to tackle the question of: should we continue using PC ? and: how should we use PC ?, which is why I'm suggesting that as a fourth phase, we should draft a proposed policy, then ask the question: "Do you approve the continued use of pending changes as specified in this proposed policy ?" If there's consensus for approving, then it's done, otherwise we try again with an amended proposed policy, and so on. Moreover, because it is impractical to have a tool but no accord as to how it should be used, we should set a date after which PC will be removed from articles, with no prejudice to continued proposals. This is what I proposed here. I do not see any alternative to decisively resolve the situation. Cenarium (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rushing into Another Phase

Please tell me we aren't seriously considering starting yet another phase then a vote. This phase has been open less than a week. Really as far as I can tell this breaks down into 3 different categories of dicussion:

What are the effects of pending changes?
What should we do about pending changes?
Discussion about Discussion (mainly, screw discussion, let's go to a vote and close this mother f***** right now (obviously not in quite as strong terms) )

Regarding question number one I can see absolutely no reason why we are throwing darts at a board here. To quote Chzz from above "Seriously, why can we not gather such data?" People around here usually make nice graphs here for everything from the revert rate to the number of failed to passing RFAs. Why can't we produce the same kind of data and resources for this, which is one of the most controversial policy decisions (well maybe tied with Non-Admin Rollback, I'm not totally sure) we have yet to make. I have no idea why we are debating fact instead of trying to find it out empirically. If this were the middle ages and we were having an RFC in this format we'd have two sections: "The sun is in the center of the solar system" and "The Earth is in the Center of the Solar System", with endorsements for each. Things like this are within the realm of science, and data is not open to debate. It's not a matter of what you believe, it's a matter of what actually happened. In this case were just "doin it wrong".

I think the current format is not effective primarily because it does not allow people to reply and point out any flaws in that particular point of view. This eliminates any opportunity for something like the Socratic Method to occur. Discussion is how you find and fill holes in an argument. One of the problems we were having with the previous discussion was not that it was messy (that didn't really bother me too much), but that the same arguments were being rehashed over and over. The "real problem" with the last poll, as I see it at least as I see it, was that there was no organization so it was very difficult to see patterns.

The reality here is that most people here don't have a totally unique opinion. Due to this you are getting different camps, which is very apparent in this phase of the RFC. Instead of trying to go against this fact we should use it to our advantage. We need to try to break out exactly what the different camps are and try to solidify what the arguments for and against are for each camp, develop a summary for that position (similar how we have for meta:Deletionism or meta:Inclusionism, then measure support or opposition for that posistion. As related points of view devolop we can mention them either separately or corollaries to the previous statement. This would have the advantage of making it so people can easily read up on this in an organized way and possibly make an educated decision.

An additional problem with the current poll is that it is unclear whether support means endorse means support or something less strong (like I believe this statement is correct). This muddies the waters and makes statements that seem to be obviously true (like "PC prevents vandalism") to have potentially a far greater number of endorsements than a differently worded statement might (like "I want to enable PC to prevent Vandalism"). The lack of ability for people to edit the argument section makes it impossible for people improve on the viewpoint. This means that whatever flaws in clarity, readability, or in the argument itself can't be fixed.

(so for the tl;dr for this post)

We should not go to another phase yet
We need data
Current proposal method has problems

Unclear what endorse means
No improvement of ideas
No way to measure opposition

Current method has benefits

Clearly breaks out different camps
Prevents rehashing of the same stuff
Clearly measures popularity of camp

The way forward:

Clarify Camps
Create a Collective Argument for each Camp
Attempt to improve arguments from discussion
Measure support and opposition to each camp

--nn123645 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you header is a bit long, and is filling up my edit box and watchlist summaries, headers are not places to make personal comment, would you mind if I npov it to perhaps - comments on the proposed format and anchor your original header? Boldly done.Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that my original header is non-neutral enough to be a problem under the WP:TPG, that being said I have no problem to changing it to something shorter for the reasons you mentioned. I think "Comments on the proposed format" is too similar to the other sections. I have changed it to "Rushing into another phase". I think the anchor is probably overkill, but I'm not bothered. --nn123645 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rushing, I posted the draft of the next phase so that we could get feedback on it before implementing it. We already had an open discussion phase that lasted two weeks. I think your idea of deliberately polarizing users into "camps" is not a good way forward. For one thing, there are so many issues at play here that it seems unlikely to be able to boil them down in this manner. For example, what if a user supports pending changes, believes it should be used on all blps, but think the reviewer right is too easy to get. The next user agrees with him on everything but the reviewer right, which he thinks is fine the way it is. Are they in the same "camp" or different ones? I'm afraid that approach is going to be too simple for an issue with so many nuances. As to the data, this has been brought up several times, and my only reply is that if I happen to meet the guy who has the data I will urge him to post it here. I don't have it, I don't know where to find it, I'm not aware of anyone having collected it in the first place despite the fact that we were having a "trial." I don't know whose job is was supposed to be to collect this data but whoever it was they don't appear to have done it. I suspect everyone thought someone else was doing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People are organizing that way anyways, regardless of if we do it. On any issue you will likely have a very similar opinion to many other people. That was the original idea behind political parties and behind Left-Right Politics. The whole point of organizing the National Assembly like that was to see the patterns (read the history section of that article). If someone does come up with a new position it is very likely that someone else will also adopt that position, making the position non-unique. In your example they would be in the same camp on the scope issue, but in different camps on the reviewer issue. I notice you put the word "camp" in quotes, I only used it because it is commonly used. If you have a better term feel free to replace it. --nn123645 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Subsection

I found some of the questions leading in favor of pending changes. For instance, the "PC reduces vandalism, but so does semi-protection" should have been worded "PC is just as effective at reducing vandalism as semi-protection". At least then people could discuss whether they think it is needed on top of the tools already existing. Angryapathy (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to add any view they want, leading or not. Less than half of what is now on the page are the original position statements posted when this phase began. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, I was the person who created that header. And I actually intended it to be understood in a manner that is opposite to how Angryapathy took it. I was reacting to the section before it, which said that PC reduces vandalism, and I wanted to give users the opportunity to indicate that, although that is true, it isn't necessarily a reason to need PC. But the lesson is that we will have to take care in interpreting the results here. And in a way, that is reassuring. Despite all of the concern being expressed in this talk, when this phase is over we will need to be cautious in not over-interpreting—and as long as we are cautious, there is much less to be worried about. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Angryapathy's premise, although not particularly on that one example. The problem with adding views now is that many editors have already visited and won't be back. This has actually been the case for some while. Newer views have been considered by fewer editors, so they are less likely to have been endorsed, although the proportion of visiting editors who endorsed them may be just as high as in some of the original questions. This was inevitable, but it may not be hugely problematic, as long as the raw numbers aren't overemphasized when the results of "phase 2" are analyzed. Rivertorch (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to analyse the data

I do hope that the people supporting this have actually looked at the information that we have collected? See Wikipedia:Pending changes/Metrics/Anonymous edit quality and Wikipedia:Pending changes/Metrics/Preliminary Analysis in particular. We know, for example, that PC permitted an average of five acceptable edits and stopped ten unacceptable edits by IPs, per month, per article, in articles that had previously been semi-protected (and thus received zero IP edits, good or bad). We know that on average, each edit spends an hour sitting in the PC queue.

Also, some of the requests for information in that section need greater clarity. For example: "Does Pending Changes create a greater deterant vandalism?" Greater compared to what? Compared to semi-protection (which is what the trial set out to study)? Or compared to zero page protection (which is outside the scope of the trial)? Or compared to something else?

PC was applied to about 0.05% of our articles. It is highly unlikely that this sample size would permit us to draw any conclusions at all about long-term changes in editor behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let everyone know that I've asked the tech team for data that can answer two questions:

"Do articles under Pending Changes have noticeably slower page load speeds than those without?" There's useful anecdotes to suggest this is true, but we should benchmark it for real.
"How many edits were accepted from anonymous and unconfirmed accounts to articles within the Pending Changes trial over the last six months?" We need to see the effect PC has on the ability of anonymous and unconfirmed editors to participate in articles, as compared to semi-protection or what have you. I've asked for just the aggregated number of unrejected edits from the trial first, but the frequency would be good too. Additionally, I've asked about how many edits would be made by the same class of editor if you extrapolate that frequency of anon/unconfirmed editing to the complete number of articles currently under semi-protection (i.e. what would happen if we replaced semi-protection with PC? Just as an exercise for thinking about scaling use of the tool.)

Hopefully that will give us a better idea of whether Pending Changes is worth the trouble. Steven Walling at work 20:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That data is definitely a good start, but isn't quite as detailed as I'd like. On the question for the deterrence I would like to see a comparison either between the page's history, or to other pages on a similar topic and with a similar level of traffic and edits. Regarding if there is any long term changes I'd like to see if the editors who are reviewers are more likely to bite editors than they were before pending changes, or if any other effects which may or may not have been anticipated. Even though PC is only on 0.05% of the articles, you have the same common people reviewing the same articles. It's not enough to draw a conclusion, but you can at least get some idea of what the social effects of this system may be. A lot of this analysis will require manual classification of edits, which to my knowledge has not been done. --nn123645 (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are those "pages on a similar topic and with a similar level of traffic and edits" unprotected pages? The trial was not designed to study that question.

Deciding after the fact that you're going to compare pages under long-term semi-protection against pages that have not ever needed long-term semi-protection is likely to produce invalid results. A retrospective case-control study, where the two groups are defined as coming from different populations, is not worth anyone's time or effort.

I have no idea how you would accurately measure any hypothesized attitudinal changes. You could measure behavioral changes (e.g., likelihood of templating someone on a PC-rejected vandalism vs templating vandalism on an unfiltered article), but that's not the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More choice than a patisserie

One would have to say that the other side of this page is enough to get people to NOT participate. Too much choice, too much noise, no lucid argument. Anybody but the extremely passionate is just going to take one look and walk away. Far better to get three or four positions papers to be worked upon separately, and then to be presented so that people can read the opinions, judge the argument, and apply some thought. Personally, I don't have that amount of free time to battle through the dross, and I do have a level of involvement and participation. billinghurst sDrewth 01:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, and I certainly hope that doesn't result in less participation here. But this is actually an argument in favor of the format (more or less) of the next "phase". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but putting it into the general mix through the overarching watchlist-announcement <Join the second phase of a community discussion to decide the future of pending changes protection. [dismiss] seems to be misguided. billinghurst sDrewth 04:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily thing it is an argument in favour of the purported 'third phase'. It could also be a suggestion for the type of approach I've been suggesting - ie, to switch the thing off, and set up a committee to analyze things (within some time-limit), and put specific clear proposals to the community for consensus and discussion. Per draft. Chzz ► 04:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Chzz, I would support what you just said if it had been presented as a "view" here. I don't know, maybe that would work better, maybe Beeblebrox's approach would work better, or maybe either one will work out just fine in the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why this hypothetical committee can't make a recommendation while the feature is switched on. It seems very much "First, do it my way. Then, with inertia on my side, I'll see that we keep doing it my way."

Actually, I don't understand why Chzz (apparently) refuses to do this himself. There's nothing stopping him from inviting a few editors to his userspace and drafting a proposal. The data from the trial's been posted publicly for months: there's no apparent need to get any more. I see no reason why so many editors should be whingeing that there's no data or nobody's analyzed the data when (a) people started posting their analyses months ago and (b) the raw data has been posted, so if the detail you personally want hasn't been worked out already, then you can go do it yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most people got here (certainly I did) through the invitation to participate in the RfC. There is no link to the data on the RfC page and I only became aware of its existence today when I saw the links to it posted above. It may have been posted months ago but that is no use if it is only known to the those intimately involved with the project. SpinningSpark 22:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general Wikipedia defaults to the status quo. It's how we work. The status quo was supposed to be a fixed-length trail followed by a long term decision. Until that gets done there are a lot of people who think that the violation of process and general consensus building is significantly more of a problem than the underlying issue itself. I know I'm going to look very skeptically at any attempt to continue PC without actually ending the trial first. From what I can see I'm not alone. It's basically "standing up to a bully 101." You can't let a bully bully their way into what they want otherwise the bully will just keep coming. That's bad for Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billinghurst, I must disagree. I do not consider myself extremely passionate about PC. In fact I have only seen it in action about twice. However, I feel that the new format lends itself to everyone being involved rather than those who want to spend the time to craft and edit an argument for the debate. I feel that I was able to make my views known without having to battle others (who may be too passionate). Cliff (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing - the trial was ill-conceived; it wasn't really a trial at all. It has not produced meaningful information about the impact of PC - and that is what we so desperately need. Whilst we remain in this state of limbo, it is not possible to step back and re-evaluate. I've already explained why I think it must be turned off, prior to any progress, several times, on this page - so I won't repeat that. Chzz ► 21:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it has produced meaningful information. For example:

Up to 20% of previously semi-protected articles didn't need to be, because no IP tried to edit them under PC.
Previously semi-protected articles get about two bad edits from IPs for every one good edit from an IP.

Do you think that is 'meaningless'? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List the options

If I'm reading this right we have the following basic ideas floating around:

Turn off PC
Leave it on

If we do use it we are left with where do we use it. I think I'm seeing 4 options though the first could be combined with the 2nd and 3rd.

Use it in place of semiprotection
Use it for low-traffic BLPs
Use it for all BLPs
Use it for all articles

Who can review/edit

All autoconfirmed folks can directly edit and review edits
All autoconfirmed folks can directly edit, only reviewers can review.
Only those with the reviewer status can directly edit or review.

What the basis for reviewing is:

Only reject vandalism
Only reject vandalism and BLP violations
Reject anything which in the reviewer's mind makes the article worse

I think that hits basic options. Thoughts? Can we make this a simple poll and do each issue one at a time? We'd need to set the thresholds for each of these of course. But I think the first step is identifying the basic issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)

Under "where do we use it," I would add: "Use it as an intermediate step between unprotected and semi-protected (and vice-versa when attempting to remove semi-protection from an article)." Other than that, it looks like a good summary. Revcasy (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good summary to me too.

Also, I think that regardless of the actual rules, the conceptual thing should be that PC is a tool that the project and community can offer to the editors monitoring an article if those editors can use it responsibly: whatever it's for, it definitely is not there for the purpose of giving some editors an upper hand in edit wars or in preventing any kind of genuine good-faith editing.

Even if all of the reviewer-flagged editors monitoring an article always make their own edits in good faith, and always appear to apply good-faith judgment on the decision of whether to approve another's edit or not, it should be possible for an admin (or whatever user type can control the feature) to remove PC on an article simply because an "unreasonable" amount of backlog (which will need to be carefully defined, of course) is accumulating or because other practical problems are cropping up.

So there need to be tools and processes to allow admins to easily verify any practical problems that are occurring because PC is turned on and there need to be tools and processes available to all users for specifically examining the history of reviews / pending changes approvals on an article and evaluating whether or not PC is being used responsibly.

tl;dr The conception of the purpose of the PC feature within the project is as important as the specific policy rules guiding its use. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should be so liberal handing out the reviewer flag that we end up giving it to vandals

I got overly enthusiastic adding an endorsing note in the project page, then noticed the request that endorsing notes be no more than one sentence long, so I'm putting what I wrote here instead. I plan to create links to this comment but I'm not clear on how to create links that survive the talk page getting archived, so if there's a way to do that I'd appreciate it if someone could give me a quick explanation or link to instructions.

PC reduces the amount of time that Wikipedians with the "reviewer" userright flag on their accounts who are trying to monitor an article need to spend fighting vandalism, because it essentially queues up vandalizing edits so that they can be reviewed in batches instead of a one-at-a-time back-and-forth with a vandal. At the same time it allows good-faith edits to occur and continues Wikipedia's policy of openness and transparency; the pending changes activities are fully recorded and auditable like everything else.

As long as the "reviewer" userright flag is granted liberally and based on a majority of a user's edits being good faith, the permanent introduction of the pending changes feature will be greatly beneficial to Wikipedia. The fulcrum of whether the feature is in general used effectively or abused is going to be the frequency of granting of the reviewer flag, not the point when the developers enable the feature.

I would actually say that the policy needs to be that the flag is given out so generously that it ends up being given to many users who are almost certainly vandals or bad faith editors. Doing so would be perfectly okay because it's a very marginal capability that shouldn't really make a vandal any more successful in their vandalism than they are now. It'll actually be a good thing for there to be a few vandals who have the reviewer flag because we don't want anyone assuming that just because you have the reviewer flag you're an honest editor. (If you think about it, that situation would at the very least be no worse than the way things work now.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well put.Cliff (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a reviewer, I still review the edits of reviewers on articles I regularly edit. A BLP with few watchers that is pending protected benefits from the attention of reviewers that would nave gone totally unnoticed without protection. To my knowledge after seven months of activity and trial of the tool it has not happened yet that a vandal has been given the tool and abused it, but it is not rocket scientist and a vandal may spent three or four weeks building up respect with the intention of requesting reviewer status and then vandalizing an article, as I have seen pending protection work, its better in such situations than no protection and no watchers at all.Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, to me, isn't so much that vandals get it as users whom are obviously unqualified - regularly jump into edit wars, are involved in ArbCom-sanctioned areas, etc. - get it. A vandal can easily be dealt with. A zealot who believes his word is law cannot. Likewise, know-nothing users should not - but invariably will - approve subtle vandalism edits that will defeat the whole purpose of PC through their ignorance. The problem with PC is that it assumes that the userbase is unwaveringly neutral and knowledgeable. It ain't either. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 22:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as a zealot reveals him or her - self the reviewer right is removed. The wikipedia userbase is basically the middle ground and it doesn't take much knowledge to recognize a zealot. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but we aren't notoriously good at removing user rights from accounts, even when they are being misused. Also, about the original post, I think it's nonsense to say we should be granting the right to users who are almost certainly vandals, and I think it's fairly obvious that that would be a bad idea, which would render PC pointless. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to give the flag out liberally, to the degree that we end up with obvious cases where it's given to vandals, is so that people can't claim that they have been denied the reviewer flag out of bias or prejudice. As Off2riorob points out, another nice side effect might be to make sure that the community process for objectively evaluating whether a reviewer's use of hir privileges is responsible or not, and removing those privileges as appropriate, is working.

If we aren't good at that we should get better at it, rather than erring on the side of denying the reviewer flag to people who are considered "trouble makers", etc. by cranky admins.

I mean, based on what you just said, there are lots of people who have the admin flag who shouldn't - who will mess up the allotment of the reviewer flag; so being timid policy-wise about handing out the reviewer flag will simply compound the problems if what we actually need to do is fix the community processes for removing misused rights. Otherwise we'll essentially be saying to people who get screwed out of receiving the reviewer right "Sorry, we can't bother to fix our own processes well enough that we trust ourselves enough to give you this user right." --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"What the feature is NOT for" subsection

It appears to me that the project page for this RfC is now functioning something like a survey questionnaire, whether or not that's what is intended. I think it's a good idea to get some survey data on what Wikipedians do NOT want the PC feature to be used for, so I have gone ahead and been bold and added a subsection Scope -> What the feature is NOT for. If that was an inappropriate or an ill-conceived idea please feel free to delete or change it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr

I assume there are a lots of us who just wish to get back to why we are here, improving the encyclopedia. There is too much poor content that need help. This tool makes my job easier thus I shall use it. I however am bowing out of this conversation to get back to work. I will come and vote if a meaningful and fair option is put forwards. Cheers and all the best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things are starting to ballon out of control a bit again. However the level of endorsements has been helpful and will be of use in moving forward. The third phase will only rerquire a few minutes of each user's time. One thing we do seem to have consensus for already is the idea that an up or down decision must be made sooner rather than later. The way I am envisioning this is as follows: After phase three is closed, a team of users will be charged with reading every last questionnaire. We should be able to resolve "The big question™" based on those replies. As that has been the primary goal of this process, I believe that result can and should be considered binding as much as anything ever is around here. Hopefully, if enough users have participated we should also be able to formulate a rough guide to using PC (assuming it's kept). Over time I'm sure there will be the usual refinements, proposals, changes based on how it is being used in reality, etc. In the end we should have something we can call a policy. So we're not done yet, but we are, despite what it like like out there, making progress. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I think before that we need some kind of agreement about how the team in question is to evaluate things. At the most basic level, what is their charge if there is no consensus to keep or remove PC? Hobit (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phase three directly asks users the question of whether to keep it in some form or reject it altogether. If we can't determine a consensus based what I imagine is going to be a rather large number of responses then this entire process will have failed as that has been the primary goal all along. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad instructions

This got bad instructions. I looked but said forget it. How can I get reviewer rights cause I want to talk about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Town,WP (talk • contribs) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need reviewer rights to talk about PC. Heck - I don't have 'em, and I'm talking about it! —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah O.K. I still think the instructions are bad. cause it really doesn't tell you what to do. But I want to say I like this one better than when someone has to do it for you. I don't even like that. But this one lets you do it yourself and that is better. So if it can go here, it's O.K. But you can move it to the right place if you want. I want to tell the main people about it. And I want them to know. Town,WP (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 538: / Line 538: @@
 This got bad instructions. I looked but said forget it. How can I get reviewer rights cause I want to talk about it  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Town,WP|Town,WP]] ([[User talk:Town,WP|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Town,WP|contribs]]) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :You don't need reviewer rights to talk about PC. Heck - I don't have 'em, and I'm talking about it! —<font color="228B22">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy]]''</font> <font color="00008B"><small><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Hyper Combo K.O.!]])</sup></small></font> 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
+::Yeah O.K. I still think the instructions are bad. cause it really doesn't tell you what to do. But I want to say I like this one better than when someone has to do it for you. I don't even like that. But this one lets you do it yourself and that is better. So if it can go here, it's O.K. But you can move it to the right place if you want. I want to tell the main people about it. And I want them to know. [[User:Town,WP|Town,WP]] ([[User talk:Town,WP|talk]]) 05:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)