This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Pending changes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Phase 2 - Talk Page

This archive is for the topics related to phase 2 of the RfC.

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 In the interest of a "clean slate" this page has been archived.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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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

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

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

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)

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)

I would just link to WP:JIMBOSAID and call it a day. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

20% of 962 (PC-protected pages, now) = 192.4 articles. That is, about 0.005% of articles. Meaningless? hell yeah. Chzz ► 15:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For the purposes of statistical analysis, the trial size is more than adequate. For a given required precision sample size does not depend on the total size of the population of articles, only on the size of the sample and the confidence required in the result. A sample of 192 articles corresponds to a sampling error of around 7%, more than adequate for our purposes. What may be more questionable is the methodology used for choosing the sample in the first place. This depends on what information the trial was supposed to deliver, but as no one seems to have the faintest idea what that was going to be, it is hard to say whether the sample we have is usable or not. SpinningSpark 17:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

During the trial, there were more than 1600 articles under PC, so the error rate is lower than you calculate above.

The purpose of the trial was to see whether PC was a viable alternative to indefinite semi-protection in terms of preventing vandalism and libel from hitting your favorite web search engine. This fact has been posted several times, on several pages, and is rather more than "the faintest idea" of the trial's purpose.

As we discussed elsewhere, I would have run a different trial, but this is the one they wanted to run, and so they did. The lack of control group is unfortunate, but the choice of articles in the intervention group was largely appropriate for the limited question chosen to be studied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

statement strike

I have struck a part of a statement that is just false or at the least falsely complicates as simple statement , multiple users have also complained about it -

PC should continue to be used

Now that the trial is over,~~and Jimmy Wales has approved it~~ it should be used as is available.

The fact that Jimmy supports it is irrelevant the the question. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that was appropriate. Whoever added that view phrased it the way they did because that is what they believe. And another section was started specifically to counteract that argument for those who disagree with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I see from the edit history, actually it was created to counteract a question not the other way around. I don't think it was appropriate to include that when it is not true. I was added here - multiple users have complained that it is there. There are two comment in opposition there -

4.20 PC should not be used until consensus is gained
4.21 PC should continue to be used.

To include the caveat in one that Jimmy supports it creates a false imbalance.

These are two other two sections about Jimmy that balance each other

4.23 PC is a fact of life per Jimbo's decision
4.24 PC is not a fact of life despite Jimbo's decision - Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is seven feet tall and shoots bolts of lightning from his arse. But besides that, it does seem to me like the presence of this phrase has the potential to mislead. I think that the divine intervention issue is handled well enough in the "PC is a fact of life per Jimbo's decision" subsection et al. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Striking part of a view that has already been endorsed by various editors is deeply problematic. Few, if any, of the views are worded perfectly. Some I would have endorsed, had their wording been slightly different. At least one contains a simple grammatical error which I've refrained from fixing because doing so could, however subtly, change its meaning, if only in the mind of one editor. Unless we're willing to contact all editors who signed the section and verify that they still endorse the statement minus the stricken portion, the results of that section are now unusable. This action should be reverted. Rivertorch (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've boldly reinstated the text. I also added a note by the one vote made while it had been stricken. The text should never have been there, but we can't rewrite history. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But you just did rewrite history. What makes the option you chose the lesser to two evils? Why not leave the improved version of the statement and add notes next to the endorsements made while the statement was in a form appealing to divine authority, rather than the other way around? Because that might run the terrible risk of looking cluttered and not-pretty?

I don't really care that much and don't intend to make an edit either way, it's just that your action and statement above seem contradictory to me: to accede to one version of rewriting history but not another. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, 55 voted with the statement in there and only one voted without it. For another, the process that others have followed when they object to wording is to open a new section, not rewrite history. The entire section would have been rather meaningless with notes beside nearly everyone's vote. —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Not sure who the "main people" are, but the way to let them know is this: go to Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011 and type # and then your signature at the bottom of each of the views you agree with. You can also place a brief comment between pound sign and signature, if you want. Rivertorch (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of options for phase 3 - Talk Page

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Pending changes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive is covers the multiple ideas discussed for phase 3.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Of course: Go click on "metrics" in any of the pages. The data has been posted for months, but nobody seems to bother with reading it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Does it take you more than ten seconds to determine that "I LOVE CHEESEBURGERS!!!!!" is vandalism and click the 'rejected' button?

As I said above, the average delay is over an hour (time from when the edit is saved to time when the edit is shown to the world). However, the actual amount of trusted editors' time is about ten seconds per edit: you click the link, let it load, glance over the contents, and accept or reject. It does not take an experienced editor more than an hour to evaluate "I LOVE CHEESEBURGERS!!!!". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This highlights one of the central problems: we're discussing different potential implementations of PC.

For simple vandalism - yes, 10 seconds is reasonable.

For potentially concerning information about a living person, especially if the source is not available online, it takes a lot longer. And many people have indicated that the purpose of PC is to avoid libel - not plain, boring "CHEESEBURGER" vandalism.

For "CHEESEBURGER", we already have various mechanisms in place. Edit-filter, bots, and NPP. I think you'll conceed that if someone did add that text to an article, the chances are very high that it would be removed within 2 minutes. We deal with such vandalism quite well. And if an article on a living person DOES say "I LOVE CHEESEBURGER" for 100 seconds or so, I don't think that is a concern. It's not libelous; it is just garbage. Chzz ► 07:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

- 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)

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)

The problem inherent in directly asking users that question is that it will polarize editors into two camps, thus effectively ending any possibility of nuanced discussion or compromise. My honest answer is "it depends", and judging from the pattern of endorsements to the phase two views, I suspect I am not alone. Unless we can get to the point where at least some of the sticking points our answers depend upon are ironed out, some of us who are attempting to remain open-minded about pending changes will be forced either to hold our noses and pick a side or abandon participating in this process altogether. The result of that likely will be considerable bitterness, and no way will it lead to anything like consensus—just a vote split nearly down the middle and a plethora of valid arguments on both sides.

There's a lot of frustration with the protracted nature of the process, I realize, but I think that the sort of phase three you're proposing might be skipping some worthwhile steps. How about, at the end of the RfC, stepping back and analyzing what we've just done? We might find out that consensus does exist in a few areas, and that those points of limited agreement offer us a path forward. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox: You have 53 users who say that PC should continue to be used and 53 others who say that it is confusing (ignoring one who voted in both sections). How do you expect to reach consensus without addressing the issues that users find confusing first? Several of us are trying to help here, but we keep getting told to go away because we're dragging things out. On the contrary, refusing to address the basic problems is dooming us to yet another "no consensus" result. Phase 3 should be a discussion organized with one section for each major problem and improvement proposal. No open-ended navel gazing. e.g., stop talking about the uncertainty in the duties of a reviewer and solve the darn thing. There is no mandate for having PC on any articles today. It's fine to ask for approval to deploy it, but please don't insult us by asking to "keep" something that hasn't been approved. You might think it a semantic point, but there's no point in deliberately stirring up emotions on such a volatile subject – if you care about getting approval that is. There is no ticking clock here; the devs aren't going to switch it off if we don't decide this week. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with UncleDougie. This whole area has suffered from rushing. Remember this straw poll? I was in the middle of a discussion about the best way of doing it when someone decided to JUST DO IT and hence the thing was a mess that gave us our current non-consensus.

We need something that enables nuance. Something that allows people to say "it depends" and then looks at why they are saying that.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what the questionnaire will allow. You may make any response you wish. However, I now realize I misspoke before. Turning it off and having the devs improve it and re-submit it is the only option that is off the table. The Foundation has indicated they will not use their paid employees to this end without first getting an up or down decision, and I don't blame them. If you want an open discussion that does not have as its main goal to answer the yes or no question of keeping PC that is some other RFC that you are free to initiate if you like. The main goal of this RFC is, was, and will continue to be answering that question. I've never tried to hide that, it has been prominently posted at the top of the page since day one. I would add that one point that clearly has strong support in this phase is that a decision must be made sooner rather than later. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case, assessing consensus on the basis of various people's opinions can't decisively resolve the matter, we not only need to know if PC should be used, but also how PC should be used if at all. And those two questions are inseparable, since users condition their acceptance of PC on how it would be used. Because of this and as we know how difficult it is to asses consensus on complex issues, determining a consensual course of action is next to impossible, and even then, this would give a too large margin of appreciation to the assessors. So a policy for using PC must be proposed, the drafting of it should be based on the information gathered from the RFC, and it should be put to the examination of the community at-large, while allowing further attempts but setting dates of limitation. Could you please comment on that proposal, see here and here for details. Cenarium (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

While I don't "own" this RFC, as the person who started it and has crafted the various phases I think I know what it's purpose was supposed to be. In fact here is the first edit to the RFC [3]. "this rfc is intended as to settle this matter and formulate clear and specific instructions for administrators and users requesting protection as to when, where, and for how long pending changes protection is appropriate." I still believe that will be possible once the results from phase three are added into the mix and the whole thing is analyzed, but I certainly don't expect a finished, perfect policy at this stage. Once a rough guide based on the results is published, the process you describe is exactly what I had anticipated. Have faith, we are going to get to that point but we're not quite there yet. On another note though I may have to delay the rollout of phase three as a bit of an emergency is developing at my job and I may not be available for more than a few moments until Monday. And with that I gotta go, not sure when i will be able to reply to any further requests or messages here. Lousy timing to be sure but despite how it may look sometimes I do have a life outside WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not as bad as all that at work but I believe I will hold off another day anyway just to see what happens with the temporary removal being discussed now. Whether anyone acts on that or not I intend to roll out phase three on Sunday. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary so far

. PC helps in the fight against vandalism on BLPs, and on preventing improper additions to BLPs.
. Semi-protection helps prevent IP vandalism to BLPs.
. If reviewers are opening themselves to legal liability for accepting improper edits, it would be nice to know it. This is likely answerable by WMF in any case.
. We do not have statistics on how many edits were accepted and rejected in the trial, nor how many of them would have been rapidly caught without pending changes in effect.
. Without ongoing usage, it is unlikely that the software will get appreciably improved, as feedback on the software will cease. (append) Some editors believe that improvements can be made without any usage of the program.
. Arguments about it being difficult to use will not be addressed without it being in active development. (append) Some editors believe tests must be made on a precise number of articles with a precise number of edits in order to judge efficacy of the program before any additional use should be made.
. A substantial number of editors suggest that removing some portion of IP editors' ability to directly edit articles is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia as originally intended.

Does this fairly represent the last few hundred thousand words on the topic? Collect (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC) (added line breaks to make the appended material appear at the end of each statement)Collect (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good representation! The summary was a good idea. NOW I get all the hub-bub :-) -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Collect Fairly represent? No. At the very least, you've left out that it's confusing and slow and shouldn't be implemented without consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(appended from archive - as the person starting this new page saw fit to essentially remove it from view immediately after others replied to it) I feel this section will be of substantial value in explaining what the issues are. Note further that the issue about "being difficult to use" was, indeed, in the summary. Again - does this fairly represent the preceding few hundred thousand words? I fear, by the way, that this "new page" will, if anything, prove as confusing or more confusing in settling any issues than the preceding pages were. IMHO. Collect (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

1. PC helps in the fight against vandalism on BLPs but so would just fully-protecting all articles 2. Semi-protection helps prevent IP vandalism as 1, of course it does - but so what? what has that got to do with anything at all? 3. If reviewers are opening themselves to legal liability for accepting improper edits, it would be nice to know yes, that's a simple question for WMF consideration - not something we need to discuss and decide - we can't make the law 4. We do not have statistics we no nothing about the effects of PC, because the trial was not a trial; it had no measurable objectives, and apparently has no end 5. Without ongoing usage, it is unlikely that the software will get appreciably improved we haven't asked, we don't know. If we decide to ask WMF to "fix this, that and the other and we can use it" - they might well agree 6. Arguments about it being difficult to use will not be addressed without it being in active development which could be a defined-scope, defined-time, defined number of test cases 7. A substantial number of editors suggest that removing some portion of IP editors' ability to directly edit articles is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and a substantial number don't. So what? Chzz ► 20:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Trying to add this to the summary. Points 1 through 4 do not appear to have more than commentary added which is what the summary is intended to avoid - it seeks to show what is agreed upon, not every detail which people differ on. On 5, are you suggesting that developers can make major improvements without any input from users as the improvements are made? Glad to add that view. And your opinions on 6. 7 is a statement of fact - a "so what?" does not affect the summary. Thanks for giving material to add to the summary. Collect (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The above wasn't a serious suggestion for adding to the summary; it was a way of illustrating the faults in the summary. "PC helps fighting vandalism" is a simple statement of fact; it doesn't show any summarized opinion - it just states something obvious - and in doing so, it leads the reader of the summary to believe that PC is a wonderful thing indeed. It means no more than just saying "If we lock the database, we'll stop vandalism". 2 is same. 3, we can't give legal opinion, and shouldn't try (we can't make up the law through consensus).

5, what I am saying is, nothing is set in stone. We don't know what the devs might agree to. By assuming the devs will only cooperate if we say a huge "YES, FOREVER" to PC is misleading.

6, without my appended text, implies that there is no choice - again. My addition shows that there are other options. Chzz ► 08:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a summary is to summarize the prior discussions - and, as such, its only function is to keep people from having to reread a few hundred thousand words to see what has already been said. It is not, and is not intended to be, a statement of results. It is a statement of prior discussion. To the best of my ability the summary is, indeed, a full and complete summary. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand the idea of a summary, and I think it is a great idea - I just don't think that is it; I don't think it fairly summarizes the debates thus far, and I think it is misleading. Sorry - no offence intended - I appreciate your efforts. I could try to produce a better summary myself, if that is worthwhile - it'd take me several hours though, which means it'd be a few days before I had the time to do it - and I don't know if it is worth that effort, as things may have moved on in that time. Let me know, though - I don't mind having a try (or someone else could?) Chzz ► 16:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Question 1

Question 1 of this phase is extremely misleading, implying no choice;

"Do you believe Wikipedia should continue to use Pending Changes in some form, or should it be turned off entirely?"

This is implying no choice other than NO PC EVER, or SOME KIND OF PC. I do not accept that those are the only options.

a) I believe that we should consider using PC "in some form" - probably some trial, decided through consensus, to actually work out in a measurable way exactly what works and what does not.

b) I believe we should turn it off - end this crazy "trial" - and then we can meaningfully establish consensus for policies on usage, scope, and all the rest.

a) and b) are not mutually exclusive.

All the other questions are dependent on this basic fact.

IF we can remove PC, clear the air, THEN we could work out some sense of consensus.

IF we cannot remove PC first...then we have to deal with the mess of crap that currently exists.

All of my responses would depend upon that - but the questionnaire treats the ongoing use of PC as a fait accompli - yet again - despite there being no consensus for its use now.

RFC is a request for comments - discussion, working toward consensus. It is not a poll, it is not a questionnaire, and it certainly doesn't require 9000 pages and months of discussion to simply decide "YES" or "NO" - there is room for compromise. Chzz ► 20:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Now can we please reserve open discussion for the talk page, adding it to the questionnaire is only going to confuse users trying to fill it out. I'm not trying to force an end to this line of discussion, I'm just trying to maintain some semblance of order here. This never should have been on the main RFC page as the open discussion phase ended on the 8th. Summarizing the debate is fine and in fact appreciated, and I should have moved it here in the first place and not the archive. I apologize for that, I didn't think it through. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding Q1 to be impossible to understand. I'd like to suggest we get a group of people together and try to agree on what the questions should be. I'd like to put this phase 3 on hold for a day or so until we get that done. Comments/Objections? Hobit (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Massive strongest possible objection. We already did that for over a week. I got complaints but very few usable suggestions. Let us move forward and not backward. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Waiting 24 hours to do it right and have questions people understand seems worth the cost. This isn't a race. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, Hobit - maybe a week would be best; give the discussion a chance to come up with meaningful ideas. Mostly though, I'd like it to be a request for comment - not a questionnaire; let people discuss things. Beeblebrox, why do you think it OK to decide to remove my summary from the RfC, but it was fine when it was your summary? This really is rather vexing. And please don't keep bolding comments and using dramatic allcaps. Wikipedia:Shouting things loudly does not make them true. Chzz ► 21:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely the last time I am going to say this as I must have repeated it about a hundred times now. The primary purpose of this RFC has been, from the moment it was conceptualized and as reflected in the very first edit to the page, to answer the question of retaining PC in some form or rejecting it entirely. The RFC that isn't aiming to answer that question is some other RFC. If you don't want to or cannot answer that question, feel free to answer the other questions and make any other comment you wish in the comment section. All of it will be taken into consideration when this material is evaluated. Chzz, I removed the sumarry because it did not belong on the page. It is here now and open to discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

- <ec>I chose to replace the page (for now) is "Phase 3 is pending". Can we please discuss what the next step should be? I'm personally okay with the questionare thing, though I think each person should create a link back to their page here (yes the cat will do the same thing). Bit I'd really like to see Q1 cleaned up at the least. I _really_ don't understand it. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

For the third time we already did that. I'm sick and tired of this obstructionist crap. You guys want an answer then you bitch and moan and when you think it isn't going to go your way. Please undo your change right now and allow the third phase to proceed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I undid it, please allow Beeblebrox's worthwhile attempts at resolving this issue to at least continue , you can add your objections to the comments. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

<ec>Please slow down a bit. Just because I disagree with what you are doing doesn't make me obstructionist. You are insisting on doing things your way irregardless of objections, and on something this important that's just not reasonable. Can you please discuss rather than just complain? My main objection is "what is Q1 supposed to be asking?" I really can't tell as it seems to be mixing both the short term issue with the trial with the long term forward path. Hobit (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI I've opened an ANI thread because I'm afraid this is going to turn into a shooting war and that is nobody's best interest. I suggest everyone step back. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Q1 seems pretty clear to me. The trial period is over. PC is still on despite that. Do we turn it off entirely or do we keep it and try to form a policy for it's use? What is so hard to understand about that? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

See below. I couldn't tell if it was asking about long-term issues or short term (continue the trial). Upon reading for the third time I did figure it out. I would like to ask about both though. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but the concern on Q1 is valid, as I said already, since users will tend to support only some form of PC, not any form, we can't ask such a question, we can only ask if they approve a particular proposal. I think this central question should be left out from phase 3, and tackled in another way, as I'll suggest below. Cenarium (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 3

I undid the undo. I tried to say more in my edit summary, but it was truncated. Like in all heated debates, let's just stop and think about this for a while; there's no rush. I won't "edit war" over it, but please think that - once started - it'll be much harder to sort out. Please, please - hold on a bit; talk about it.

Just because we disagree with your view does not make us "obstructionist". Let's all just relax, and talk about it. It is not a simple case of having to do it in one, specific way. There are alternatives. Let's try and calm this down, and think it through. Everyone apart from you, right now, Beeblebrox appears to be having problems with the whole idea of this "phase 3" - for various reasons. Many simply do not understand, or do not agree, with the first question - and that is the heart of the entire issue. Chzz ► 21:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the first question say "Do you believe Wikipedia should continue to use Pending Changes in some form, or should it be turned off for now?", as those are the 2 most prominent opinions from the 2nd phase. Otherwise, you are presenting a false choice and effectively ignoring the 2nd RfC. Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's still a problem. For me, for example: "Do I believe Wikipedia should continue to use Pending Changes in some form?" Yes, absolutely, following consensus. "should it be turned off for now" - yes, absolutely. Chzz ► 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you think should happen to the thousand articles currently protected by pending protection? Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think, first, ask the admins who protected them to please change it as appropriate - ie, to semi, or remove prot. Maybe give that a week? After that, ask for other admins to help with the change? I don't think it'd be massively difficult. On AN, Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) just said he removed 100 before - and offered to help with it again; others have offered too.

I do also think, we should remove "reviewer" from everyone too. Otherwise we'll have a difficult time in revoking it with a live system in play, and it seems likely that the requirements would be further refined. Chzz ► 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So you want to remove pending and wait a week..to see what happens? The requirement of edits is unlikely to change far and anyone that has got it and has not misuse is is likely to never misuse it. Any articles thsat I am working on I would want the protection raised to the only thing left, semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think pending changes should be removed from all articles for at least a few months (and switched to semi-protection in the meantime). Whether it is ultimately used or not is of little consequence in my opinion. What is much more important is that the community and the Foundation feel like they are working together in good faith. Kaldari (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

All we are asking is not to be shut out of the 3rd phase by not being given an option that reflects our opinion. That's not much to ask. Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Chzz: I don't understand your objection to my proposed wording. Wikipedia cannot both continue using pending changes and turn off pending changes. The wording "for now" implies that the option to use it in the future is still open. What wording would you suggest instead? Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Off2riorob, no, you misunderstand me: I was just talking about the logistics of removing it. I don't know when or how we'd switch it back on - that would come from discussion. What I meant by "a week" was, that a possible way to remove it would be, a) ask admins who set the protection to look at the articles, and change the prot, b) give them a week to do so, c) ask other admins to handle the rest. That was all. Chzz ► 23:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So you support removing pending protection from articles and replacing with semi protection of a comparable length of time? Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like it to be decided on a case-by-case basis, with a look at the recent history - and probably considering whatever prot they had before PC, or what had caused the prot. But if there are simply too many to manage that, then I'd be happy to go for semi as a 'default', but not indefinite (which is the default setting when applying PC) - we always try to avoid indefinite semi. But even then, I don't really mind - because, we're talking about a few hundred articles. For lots, the non-PC protection will be pretty obvious. As we're actually looking forwards to applying it to 100 thousand articles, I'm not all that bothered about these few. Chzz ► 23:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you support adding it to 100 000 articles? Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We can fix several problems at once here. Immediately change all articles with PC to semi-protection for 3 months and then let admins drop protection from them or change to indefinite on a case by case basis. This will also eliminate the need to ask question 1 in the prior form because there will be no more short-term issue. We should then focus the discussion on the shortcomings identified in phase 2. At the conclusion of that discussion, we can approve either a trial, immediate usage, or dismantling as we see fit. —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think many people will be here joining in the discussion after its switched off? Is three months enough protection for this BLP, might as well admit it indef it, new users can post on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone has spent this much time to discuss the fate of 942 articles. Removing all articles from PC will have no effect on participation. You can request indefinite semi on whatever you like. My proposal for 3 months is merely a suggested default so that admins can quickly change articles until a better protection fate is determined. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new wording for question one

Pending changes was activated on a trial basis. Although that trial has been over for some time, pending changes continues to be used. Should we keep pending changes in use and continue discussing how it is to be used, remove it from all articles until there is a consensus based policy in place, or reject it entirely? (Note that even if you answer that it should be turned off you are still free to answer the remaining questions as you see fit.)

As near as I can tell this addresses the objection that the question ignored a "middle road" perspective. I think I've integrated it with this phrasing. Would that work? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This looks great to me. Support. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

At last! I would add to the end of the second sentence "on 942 articles" so people understand the scope of leaving it in place. This question can be asked in a simple !vote fashion on one page with no individual userpages needed. I would urge us to handle the remaining issues in the same manner. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Caution: be very careful with setting something like that as a vote (or a !vote) because you might have the same problem that ruined the first straw poll - ie, can people "support" the second two options (because they just want it gone) - and if they do, are they seen to be (unfairly) getting two votes, compared to the people who want to keep it only getting one. Chzz ► 21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. I dare say we have unanimous consent that no one wants to revisit the first straw poll! I was just happy to finally get some reasonable wording. The same problem would happen with individual questionnaires. Once more, the answer is to remove all articles from the expired trial and the problem goes away. —UncleDouggie (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

True enough. Incidentally, the second sentence would benefit from a comma after "some time". Rivertorch (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC) So I added one. Rivertorch (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Responding to the questions

Are we supposed to create various subpages where we respond to the questions? I can't see any instructions on how to answer the quations? Yaris678 (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. this just happened. Yaris678 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a coding error that made the instructions disappear for a moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

phase 3: what to ask.

Question 1

I'm largely okay with the phase 3 as it's written. The Q1 seems very confusing however.

Pending Changes was instituted on a trial basis. Although pending changes is still in use, that trial period has been over for some time now. The purpose of these recent discussions and processes has basically been to decide the primary issue: Do you believe Wikipedia should continue to use Pending Changes in some form, or should it be turned off entirely? For purposes of this question please limit your response to this one issue. Questions related to the details on how it should be deployed if kept will follow. Please feel free to explain your position in as much detail as needed. (Note that even if you answer that it should be turned off you are still free to answer the remaining questions as you see fit.)

Can we make this two questions and split the directions out into the above section? In particular I'd like to hear about what we should do with PC in the short term (end the trial or not while we wait for a long term resolution) as well as a long-term question (as this thing is trying to be). I'm finding the three issues here (history, directions and question) confusing. Hobit (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry your so confused. I don't think the vast majority of users will have this problem. The issue of temporarily turning it off during the discussion is very much an open and unresolved discussion but it is not really tied with the primary purpose of this RFC. I logging off, edit war over it all you want I really don't give a flying fuck at the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hobit, it's all about how you phrase the question - and that's the problem I see with this format. For example, we could ask,

"Could you accept temporary removal of pending changes (from articles), as long as there was a definite plan for further evaluation and proposed implementations (in some form)?" Chzz ► 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

...and I'm sure you'll agree - that'd get a completely different response. What worries me is, this slant in the questions. If we force people into this YES/NO mentality, then that just makes for ammunition to say "well, clearly, the majority want it, in some form" - and that can be used to impose it across a massive range of articles - which may well not be what the people "supporting" intended.

It's like another user said, above - if you say "33% support it for BLPs, 33% support it for stopping vandals, 33% oppose" then you can claim 66% support for PC. Clearly, this is false thinking.

I think we need discussion, and agreement - not numbers. Chzz ► 21:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd propose we leave both the questions of long-term use and of temporary removal prior to further discussion out of the questionnaire. The questionnaire should help us to have clarifications on particular issues, but I don't think it could help us in determining a consensus on the central question. I'll suggest something soon. Cenarium (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

<ec>Chzz, I think you are right, but I don't see a realistic way to get that. Letting each person write their own answers is probably the best format for now, though I think we should have a page where people also discuss. I expect the signal-to-noise ratio will be horrible, but I see no harm to doing that in addition to having people create their own page. Some directions about how to see everyone else's response (for the few that will come here without the knowledge) would be good too. Hobit (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I also object to the wording of the 1st question in phase 3 as it is presenting a false dichotomy. Please see this discussion on my talk page. Also note that Beeblebrox has opened a thread on this at WP:AN/I. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I beleive I have presented new wording to the questions that were objected to that fixes those problems in the sections below. I also believe that Chzz's proposal is non-starter at this point. Can we proceed or not? I don't want to lose what momentum we have left and have this fall off the face of the earth. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Slow down. I like momentum and all, but getting agreement before asking input from the whole community seems important to me. The rushed false start of phase 3 has hurt more than any delay would have. I've only focused on question 1 so far because it was getting so painful. It would take me a day to go through the others. —UncleDouggie (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Momentum is all well and good, but sometimes it's overrated. After all, a runaway train has lots of momentum, but it tends not to arrive at any of its legitimate destinations. This issue has the attention of many editors, and that's not going to go away if things move at a slightly less frenzied pace. There is no fire to put out, unless someone starts one (to thoroughly mix my metaphors). Some of us who participated in phases 1 and 2 might like a little longer to reflect on the proposed wording for phase 3, and perhaps even contribute to it. Off-wiki responsibilities have minimized my presence here over the past 24 hours or so, and I'm still trying to play catch-up. Rivertorch (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I brought phase three here for discussion ten days ago exactly because I did not want to be accused of rushing. I asked for input on the time frame and didn't get any so I did when it seemed phase two was running out of steam. Not saying that means we can't wait another day, but there have been a lot of false accusations hurled at me in the last two days by people who were either not aware of or are deliberately ignoring what has gone before. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That must be very frustrating for you. Still, I have seen no evidence of "deliberate ignoring" or, in fact, any clear sign of bad faith on the part of any editor involved in this activity. Ten days is the blink of an eye in a process whose roots go back years and which many editors feel passionate about. There's a lot of text to wade through here, a lot of points to consider, a lot of allusions to earlier statements, and I'd say it's inevitable that many of us will miss some things that you may find obvious. When that happens, a patient hint to the clueless would suffice. (An anchored link or diff would be really nice.) Rivertorch (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's actually all still here on this page, the section titled "looking ahead" up at the top is the first time I mentioned it, stamped March 10. The first draft was posted in the section titled "phase three draft" stamped on March 13. There were in fact criticisms, but they did not agree on what the problem actually was. You can't please everyone and many of the suggestions were exclusive or contradictory of one another. It wasn't until after I tried to take it live that there was any real unity to the objections, and I responded by rewording three of the questions to accommodate those concerns. I think we are ready to give it another go, along with the sub-RFC being proposed by Chzz. I'm not sure I'm clear on how that is supposed to work but it really doesn't impact the questionnaire anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

While the wording of Q1 has certainly improved (I notice that you haven't made my suggestion of adding "on 942 articles" yet), there is still the very real problem of analyzing the results of a three way vote that has blown up oh so spectacularly in the past. —UncleDouggie (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the discussion of rephrasing this appears to have been a complete waste of time since the sub-RFC on this issue is being demanded to resolve that aspect before we can continue. Given that the third option is rendered moot by the poll or whatever it is supposed to be I am left to wonder if we shouldn't just revert it back to what it said before. Since this is apparently being indefinitely delayed until the other issue is resolved we have plenty of time to sort this out. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We should next resolve the policy issues so we can later make a concrete proposal for use of PC. Asking any kind of long-term keep/reject question now will be another quagmire. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How would asking a simple yes or no question be a quagmire? Now that the third option is not relevant it seems pretty straightforward. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Question 3

Many users have expressed the view that pending changes is confusing or difficult to use. What improvements would you like to see to the interface? How could it be made more user-friendly? Please try to be constructive and specific rather than general, and feel free to read or edit the list of feature ideas on mediawiki.org.

I'd prefer to add in here "do you feel it is confusing or difficult to use?"

Already asked and answered in phase two, hence the question on how to improve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sort of. Not everyone agrees with that, so it would be helpful to give those who think things are fine a way to have their voice heard other than skipping the question. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how about we just tack on "or do you feel the interface is easy to understand as-is?" Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new wording:Many users have expressed the view that pending changes is confusing or difficult to use. Have you found the current interface to be confusing or difficult to use? What improvements would you like to see to the interface? How could it be made more user-friendly? Please try to be constructive and specific rather than general, and feel free to read or edit the list of feature ideas on mediawiki.org.

Does that work? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Question 6

Biographies of living persons are among the most heavily vandalized articles on Wikipedia.

Is this true? In any case, I feel the introduction to this section is leading and should be removed. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've no objections to the rest. I'd ask that we wait 24 hours, try to address issues others might raise as we go, and move from there. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC) <ec> In anycase, I'm signing off until 8:30EST or so. Children & work both call (loudly). Hobit (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I came here to ask that same question. Where did you get that data from? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I was looking at this earlier today. Out of 544 (of my own) Huggle reverts, 80 are to pages in the Living people category. So that's about 14.71%. About 14.41% of all articles have the Living people category. So no, I would say BLPs do not get vandalised much more than other articles. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have found that most living person vandalism is in articles about schools. This was also mentioned by someone else earlier. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It says "among" the most heavily vandalized, not "certified to be absolutely the most vandalized". The point that I do not believe is in debate is that there is a consensus that protecting BLP articles is important, whether it is done with PC or in some other way. How about we just remove it.

Proposed new wording: "There is a general consensus that protecting biographies of living persons and other articles that contain information about living persons is a top priority due to the possibility of libel and real harm to real persons. Some have proposed that PC be used more liberally on BLPs or even suggested that pending changes protection should be added to all BLP articles. Should the standards for using PC be lower on BLP articles? What should the standards be for articles wherein the primary topic is not biographical but there is still content related to living persons? Should we automatically add it to all BLPs?

does that work? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has addressed my concern about what we mean by a BLP. See #adam on this page. Chzz ► 21:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, look a little closer. It has been there all along and is even more clear with the new wording. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's still quite leading, and I dispute there's a "general consensus" of applying protection to BLPs, else they'd all be semiprotected. I think the question should be phrased in a simple, neutral manner—"Should pending changes protection be applied to all biographies of living persons irrespective of whether an issue with such an article has acutally arisen?" If there's no hard data to indicate BLPs are more vandalized than any other article, I strongly disagree to any part of the question implying that they are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) The word "libel" is prejudicial to the question's being read neutrally. It has a specific legal meaning which varies geographically, and few editors without legal expertise (perhaps specifically with Florida law, perhaps not) will be able to evaluate its applicability to PC in any meaningful way. The WP model is running in uncharted waters with regard to libel, and the word is being produced as a sort of trump card to bolster a particular internal agenda when we actually don't know that libel is a problem. "Real harm to real persons" should be good enough: it's broad enough to encompass libel, for those who are concerned about libel, and it is something there's informed consensus for preventing. Rivertorch (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I can see where you both are coming from. The use of the word "protection" in this sense was intended in a more general way, not specifically referring to WP:PP but to the whole suite of defensive measures we employ to stop vandalism. Obviously that needs to be rectified as it will almost certainly cause confusion. How about just changing "protecting" to "defending"? The libel issue is a bit more thorny. This has come up quite a few times which is why I included it in the question, but what is and isn't libel and who is responsible for it once it is posted is a question for the Foundation lawyers. However the question merely mentions the possibility without attempting to define it. If it's too much of a hot-button word I suppose we could just remove it, but "real harm to real persons" is something anyone can understand without a law degree and is to my mind much more alarming. Be that as it may it is in fact one of the core reasons there is so much concern about BLPs. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How about this:There is a general consensus that maintaining biographies of living persons and other articles that contain information about living persons is a top priority due to the possibility of legal issues and real harm to real persons. Some have proposed that PC be used more liberally on BLPs or even suggested that pending changes protection should be added to all BLP articles. Should the standards for using PC be lower on BLP articles? What should the standards be for articles wherein the primary topic is not biographical but there is still content related to living persons? Should pending changes protection be applied to all biographies of living persons irrespective of whether an issue with such an article has acutally arisen? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. "Legal issues" sounds like a wink-nudge euphemism for libel. I do understand that there is great concern about libel/legal issues in the community, so in that sense it would be valid to include it in the wording. On the other hand, in the absence of any hard evidence that libel/legal issues are now or have ever been an actual problem for Wikipedia editors, I cannot help viewing the recurring cries of "Libel! OMG!" as alarmist and a colossal distraction. For that reason, I think it would be preferable not to invoke any mention of the law whatsoever. I'd also suggest that for some editors, myself included, the "L word" can act as something of a conversation-stopper—sort of akin to legal threats made on talk pages, which, aside from prompting a block, also effectively end any productive discussion. (Note my emphasis of WP editors, btw. If the Foundation is at any risk, they need to deal with that separately from any consensus-based community process.) Rivertorch (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The main reasons you don't see legal issues much on-wiki are that we don't really allow that and we have oversighters and other functionaries who work quietly to remove the problems and do not discuss their activities on-wiki specifically to avoid drawing attention to them. I've dealt with this personally on a few occasions in my time as an oversighter, It's never gotten to the level of actual legal action because we generally will quickly and thoroughly remove anything that even vaguely resembles libel or defamation. I can't say it's the main issue or even a large part of what oversight deals with, but it does come up more often than is evident to the casual observer.

The main point though is that the questions are meant to be reflective of the concerns expressed by the community and rightly or wrongly this has come up repeatedly as a concern in BLPs. I actually realized just this second that I made an error when posting the data from phase 2, "PC helps with libel on BLPs" was the most endorsed view at 67. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said in my second sentence just above, I think including the word (or the euphemism) would be technically valid for that reason. I just think it's unfortunate because it tends to provoke an emotional reaction rather than a calm analysis of the evidence. At any rate, I object strongly for the record but will not attempt to obstruct; I accept that consensus does trump logic sometimes! Btw, I'm familiar with the oversight system and the nature of its off-wiki work. While it is undoubtedly highly effective at promptly and permanently removing content believed to be wrong, damaging, defamatory, etc., that's really neither here nor there vis-à-vis libel. My point remains that such content isn't known to be actually libelous, so we shouldn't keep invoking the word. Rivertorch (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think at the end of the day we feel about the same on this issue, there's been a lot of alarmist talk around it, but the community identified it as an issue they want addressed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(indent reset) I still think starting off the question by telling people what we think consensus is is leading. Just ask the questions. "Should pending changes be applied more liberally to biographies of living persons than to other articles? If so, how much looser should the standard be than for any other article?" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to introduce 'preliminary motions' in addition to the 'questionnaire phase'

I think it'll be helpful to have a phase of questions with the goal of getting clarifications, at least people's opinions, on particular issues. But I do not think that it can directly allow us to reach a consensus on the main question of "whether PC should be used and if yes, how ?". Indeed, people condition their acceptance of PC on the way it would be used, so we can't just ask if PC should be used, we need to ask if users approve a particular proposed use. We also cannot propose different proposals then ask which they want because it is extremely difficult to determine consensus in such cases when multiple options exist. And it seems next to impossible to determine consensus on the central question based on this sole RFC. So we need to work out something.
To this effect, I suggest that in addition to provide a questionnaire with questions on specific issues, we concurrently propose "preliminary motions", whose purpose is to consider procedural, not substantive, issues, with the goal to reach a consensus on the central question. For example, a motion could propose to "remove PC from articles pending further discussion", another motion may propose a setup for decisively answering the main question. To keep things under control though, proposed motions should be discussed before being actively considered. Cenarium (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm going to archive the phase 2 sections from this page for starters since no one has objected to the shutdown. Perhaps continuing this on a page for a February RFC requested by Beeblebrox isn't the best forum, although many do have it watch-listed. —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed motion for considering a specific proposal

I would like to suggest the following preliminary motion, following the idea suggested here, this is a first draft of course:

Considering that pending changes is enabled but there is no consensus on how it should be used, or even whether it should be used at all; considering that it is highly impractical to have a tool for which there is no agreement on its use; considering that users condition their acceptance of pending changes on the way it would be used and therefore that the question of "whether PC should be used" cannot be separated from the question of "how PC should be used"; it is proposed that, regardless of whether PC is temporarily removed from articles or not should this be proposed in another motion:

A specific proposal for using PC is to be established through discussion, taking into accounts the opinions given in the RFC and questionnaire, and presented to the community within a month.
Should it be approved by consensus, it will be implemented, otherwise, a new proposal will be established taking into account the objections to the prior proposal, and again presented to the community within a month.
Should it again fail to reach consensus, and should PC still be enabled on articles, it will be removed from articles (but the implementation remains on), with no prejudice to further proposals.
Cenarium (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Too bureaucratic. Perhaps appropriate for 6 months ago, but not now. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

a draft of a motion? Does motion mean something different on WP than in real life? Cliff (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It means almost the same as a 'proposal' - a formal suggestion, for discussion or vote - as in "We, the undersigned, move to ban sausages". See Motion (democracy) Chzz ► 07:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The wording may be a bit too formal, but this is not bureaucratic. The idea is just to make a policy proposal then have it considered by the community, and if it fails [to gain consensus], propose a modified version and if it fails again, remove PC from articles if not already, and continue making proposals. The 'motion' to propose temporary removal before further discussion can be considered before that. Cenarium (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to imply that I was confusing motion in the above with motion, but rather that I've never encountered anybody composing a draft of a motion. I've always understood that a motion is made to vote on a topic rather than to propose a topic. That is, the topic has already been discussed and the motion is to accept or reject it. If rejected, it can be proposed again, sure. I guess it's a minor difference of interpretation, but still sounds weird to me. Cliff (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed motion to remove pending changes protection from all articles

There is no consensus to have PC on any articles today. The question of keeping it on some articles or removing it for the short-term is confusing the discussion on a permanent solution. All articles currently under pending changes protection should be immediately changed to semi-protection ~~for a time period of 3 months~~, or any other protection level and duration that an admin finds appropriate in a particular case. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The "3 months" part is confusing though. What is supposed to happen at the end of the 3 months? A new discussion? If so, perhaps it should say "for at least 3 months". Kaldari (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The intent is to remove the articles from any pending changes control. Users can request that any article be immediately unprotected or even fully protected. Not our problem. The 3 months is just to get them out of our hair without having everyone upset that we left them all unprotected. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the "for a time period of 3 months" part then, as it only introduces more confusion. Kaldari (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The reason I included it is that others mentioned that we don't normally apply indefinite semi-protection. I suppose we can just leave it unstated and let the admins decide. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

During those 3 months, we need some hard number crunching, to determine the efficacy of PC. So just say "until the trial's results have been determined." —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 01:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop tying the fate of those 942 articles to pending changes. The purpose of pending changes isn't to protect those articles. They were part of a trial that is now over. A new trial would likely be on different articles anyway. We can't be responsible for them forever just because they were selected for a 2 month trial. All this confusion makes it clear that we will not make anymore progress until the trial is ended. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary motions idea - Chzz - my thoughts

Motions

I'm not clear on how this works. This is... in place of question 1? I like the idea of specific proposals that can be discussed - absolutely. And for improving the specific proposal, and seeking consensus. And "question 1" is the heart of the whole matter; that the entire RfC is about - which, really, is why I think it needs discussion on the RfC page itself - and that's why I've been criticizing phase 2.

So if the idea is to allow people to make specific proposals, and by adjusting them to try to form consensus - then yes, absolutely, that's what we need to do; that really is the point of an RfC.

How we go about controlling it - with these 'preiliminary motions' which are discussed before being put forth for support/oppose comments...I'm not sure. I'm not sure quite what the current suggestion by Cenarium means (and I fully accept this is probably me, being a bit stupid) - maybe you can clarify how it'd work.

Apart from Q1

APART from the big big issue of q1 (or the alternative of proposals and discussion) - I don't know if there is a point in asking all these other questions - because;

a) they're so very dependent on which proposal you have in mind - for example, the criteria for a reviewer is dependent on the scope PC is applied to and the duty of reviewing;

IF we're talking about a proposal, for example, of adding PC on "maximum of 5000 BLP-only articles which are vandalised quite often", AND if the idea was to avoid routine vandalism, THEN I'd have the view that a "reviewer" would just need to be a competent editor - so, less than Rollback.
IF the proposal was to add PC on the most contentious articles (say, 1000), to control NPOV, WEIGHT, bias, etc - THEN I'd want reviewers to have a much higher level of experience.

b) If lots of users offer opinions on these types (in their subpages) - without discussion - I don't see that helping in forming any agreement. We'll get lots and lots of pages, but I'm not sure that any meaningful evaluation can happen. And I don't think we should start getting all that information, unless we think it really will help.

Specific comments on Q2-Q10

Lots of the questions are vague, unclear, and leading questions.

Q2 asks about the purpose of pending changes, but really I think it is asking users to define what a review is - what is accepted, and what is rejected - vandalism or if sources etc. are to be checked.

The answer to this depends on how PC is implemented.

PC can be used in myriad ways; for example, to just prevent silly vandalism OR to prevent nasty subtle BLP vandalism - and the requirement of a review depends on that. So I find it hard to give any answer to this question in isolation.

So again, I think this needs to be in a specific proposal; so, "IF we applied PC in this way, then what would the job of the reviewer be - how much checking would they be expected to do?" - but we can't ask that until we know how we plan to employ PC.

Q3 It is reasonable to ask for suggested improvements. I think it'd be better if the ideas for improvement were just listed elsewhere - ie directly on mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Feature ideas - because then others could comment on the ideas, and work things out together - instead of spreading them over many pages

Q4 (will it discourage/drive away inexperienced users) - can only generate opinion. And the opinions can only be based on a tiny trial. We should have gathered real data on this from a trial. So if respondents say "yes, I think it drives them away" or "no, I don't think it drives them away" - what can we learn from that? We still wouldn't know what actually happens; we'd just be speculating.

Q5 (when should PC be used) suggests the existing prot policy - but that can't be applied to PC, because all existing prot is based on evidence of existing, ongoing vandalism. As I understand it, PC is mostly being touted as to prevent any vandalism on articles that haven't been edited in years; so we need new policies.

Whilst this question might get some more ideas, I don't see how the opinions given will help consensus. Some will say "all BLPs", some will say "All articles with BLP content" (and it'll be unclear quite what they mean, too). Others will say "all articles" or "wherever it is deemed useful". Given those types of responses - what would we do? How do we use that to form consensus? Best we'll get is, an overall impression that quite a few people think it should be only BLP, but quite a few think otherwise; so how do we assess from that? Just by counting?

Q6 (all BLPs?) is a very leading question; first, making this bold claim that BLPs are the most vandalised articles - which they aren't. Then, it says "Should the standards for using PC be lower on BLP" - how can we say yes or no, when we don't have any cohesive notion of what the standards are?

I would also like to know, what exactly is a BLP? I gave an example before: Adam Ant is a BLP - what about Adam and the Ants - which contains bio info on Mr. Goddard? What about 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 asked this above, but never got any answer.

Q7 (default length) is trivial; seems obvious to me that a default value of 'indefinite' is wrong, but really this is just some random thing a dev has put in - and could randomly change with a new release. Admins can override it; it shouldn't be indef, but...well, a trivial question to ask of all the users, anyway. Just put NO default, make admins fill it in. Problem solved - and I think that'd get no opposition. If only there were somewhere I could suggest it...

Q8 Prerequisites for 'reviewer' depends on the whole scope thing, as mentioned previously. Hence, the question in isolation offers nothing constructive.

Q9 (informing users of rejected edits) - OK, fair question. Better discussed through consensus though.

Q10 is back to Q1. No, we're not 'done'. I have no idea how conclusions could be drawn from any of this. We need discussion, not 100 opinionated/vague questionnaire answers. As I've been saying - before implementing a "phase", we should know how the hell we're gonna use the info it generates. Chzz ► 07:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not confused or stupid; it truly is a bloody mess. I suggest we stop tweaking the "10 questions" because they don't cover the all the issues identified in the prior two phases, they don't follow a logical progression, and I don't think that individual questionnaires are going to get us anywhere. Let's make a fresh attempt to layout the points that need to be decided in the proper sequence. I'll start it below. Anyone is welcome to whack at it, but please don't start any discussion on the points yet. If it turns into something reasonable, we can post it on the main page. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure who made that remarks. Anyway, how we are to evaluate the consensus is a point I have raised as well. I made a specific proposal for how I believed we would do it and asked for feedback. I got none. I asked for help in determining the selection of the closers. I got none. This contention that none of this was discussed is grade A bullshit. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've no objection to a questionnaire provided it is considered as a non-binding opinion survey, and Q1 is out (I've made various comments on this subject). Surveying for opinions is beneficial in general, in this particular case knowing the main opinion trends on specific points can help us in making a policy proposal. Cenarium (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Issues to be resolved

Per the above discussion, this is my first attempt at laying out the issues we need to solve in a natural sequence where each resolution informs the next issue. Open discussion got out of control in phase 1. Blind endorsements without opposing viewpoints got out of control in phase 2. So, I propose that in phase 3 we have a real RFC. We start by posting only one batch of related issues and collect support/oppose !votes with rationale like we're all know and love. Discussion about a !vote is permitted, but if it identifies a major hole, we may need to open a new issue later. We then determine consensus on the issues under discussion and move on. At some stages, we may be able to discuss multiple issues simultaneously if they have no dependencies on each other.

Suggestion: How about, we specifically state;

This is not a vote, but please keep comments short. Anything longer than around 1000 characters may be moved to the talk page for further discussion.

For example showing what 1000 characters looks like, see User:Chzz/length.

Chzz ► 11:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree on keeping comments short. Perhaps longer comments on the heart of the matter should be moved to a section at the end of the main page and any comments about the process should be moved to the talk page. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Liability
- Are reviewers liable for the content of changes that they approve?
- If reviewers are liable, how many editors are willing to perform reviews?
- Does the operator of a bot have the same liability as a manual reviewer?
Need for pending changes
- Displaying vandalism hurts Wikipedia's reputation, but so do other non-vandalism incidents. Is there evidence that users are avoiding Wikipedia due to vandalism?
- If vandalism is causing a serious impact, how much is due to vandalism on WP:BLPs?
Impact of pending changes
- Would removing immediate editing increase or decrease readership?
- Would eliminating all IP edits help or hurt Wikipedia's quality?
- If eliminating IP edits would hurt quality, what improvement would we get by only delaying the visibility of IP edits?
- New users don't use preview. What will be impact of separating an edit from the visual feedback of what it does to the article? If reviewers are constantly correcting wiki-markup errors for new users, how will they ever learn?
- Our anti-vandalism tools are continuing to advance, such as User:ClueBot NG and WP:STiki. We are also trying to reach out to more new users who will find pending changes to be yet another hurdle in using Wikipedia. Is there a role in the middle for pending changes?
Alternatives to pending changes
- Are there other acceptable alternatives, such as removing 1RR from ClueBot?
- How fast would enhanced reverts need to be? Is it acceptable for vandalism to be publicly viewable for 30 seconds?
- Could we provide immediate visibility to editors only based on the session cookie, in the hope that by the time they restart their browser their edits will have been dispositioned by either a reviewer or a bot?
- Could we provide immediate visibility to editors based on their IP address alone even though this would make vandalism viewable to any other users sharing the same IP address?
Duties of a reviewer. Nearly everyone agrees that edits that meet the definition of vandalism or violate WP:BLP should be rejected. What other types of edits, if any, should be rejected at the review stage? Approved edits may still be undone or modified by the reviewer or other editors later, but they will be publicly visible for at least a short time. Please discuss each type of other edit below and add additional categories if needed. For each category, discuss whether a reviewer is permitted to reject edits meeting the given criteria and whether they are required to do so.
- Editing tests, including blanking, inserting '''bold text''' and inserting "Hi"
- Good faith wiki-markup errors, including errors that cause links, references and templates to not display properly
- Unsourced, controversial additions (non-BLP)
- Violations of WP:RS
- Violations of WP:EL
- Violations of WP:NPOV
- Violations of WP:COPYVIO
Criteria for applying pending changes to an article
Requirements for being granted reviewer status
Reviewing tools
- Should bots be permitted to perform reviews?
- Should reviewers be able to approve changes using external tools such as WP:STiki and WP:Huggle?
- Are there issues with the reviewing interface?
Pending change time limit. Should there be any time limit on a pending change, after which it would be automatically accepted to avoid disenfranchising users and limit the reviewing backlog?

—UncleDouggie (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the issues identified here will get to the heart of the subject. I am not sure about your idea of a series of !votes. Most of the areas identified are not really open to a straight support/oppose. Personally, I would like to write a mini-essay on each point. Yaris678 (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize. However, I don't think that 200 users are willing to do that and I don't think we could possibly analyze the results if they did. A real RFC format is ideal because users don't need to redevelop points already made by others. Support/oppose aren't the correct !vote categories. For each issue, we should define a set of possible response codes, to be followed by rationale backing up the position. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How "mini" an essay, Yaris678? Could you live with 1000 characters, as suggested in the box above? (That's a fairly long, typical paragraph) Note example of what that looks like, User:Chzz/length Chzz ► 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

1000 characters should be enough. I like the idea of thinking about the possible responses in advance. This may even lead us to adjust the statement of the issue slightly. Yaris678 (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Liability

I have a question re. this liability stuff; why would PC be any different from any other Wikipedia edit, in this regard? I mean...legally speaking, whether I am or am not liable if I introduce something libelous then whether it is a) rollback or b) decline a pending change... would surely make no difference at all? So isn't this all really a non-issue (or, at least, an issue unrelated to PC) Chzz ► 14:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy has answered the libel question quite well on his talkpage. User talk:Jimbo Wales#Pending Changes - Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jimmy's analysis of the legal risk (extremely low) but I disagree on one point. The risk is not necessarily as low as when you merely save a page. Therefore, I can still see that it might be of concern to some people. Perhaps we need to rephrase the liability question. After all, most people are not qualified to say whether a reviewer is liable. What we can ask is whether or not that is a concern and what people think should be done about it.

I would probably not ask the question as number one. I would (maybe) wrap it up in with the duties of the reviewer question.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference with PC is that a reviewer is making the change visible for the first time. Rollback of edits that had actually removed vandalism could also present an elevated risk, but I think that is still not as high as a review. Accepting an edit is much more of an active process than rejecting a change to that edit as is the case for rollback. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, "Visible" to a certain number of users - who can still see it if they either edit the page, or look at the history, or various other ways. I really think that it is highly unlikely that distinction would have any impact on theoretical concerns over liability - concerns which, as Jimbo states, are highly unlikely to ever be cause for concern in reality. Chzz ► 14:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try and get a few minutes with legal this week to talk about this more, but in general I would agree with what Jimmy said. Don't panic is always good advice. :) At no time in the last few years did legal look at Flagged Revisions/Pending Changes and raise an objection about endangering reviewers (remember Mike Godwin was around during its whole early lifecycle and controversy). Steven Walling at work 01:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

IANAL but it seems to me that the liability issue could be partly handled by keeping reviewers anonymous (don't display the username of the reviewer who accepts an edit). For accountability purposes (in case a reviewer is misbehaving), reviewer usernames could be accessible by checkusers through the normal retention period of checkuser log data. After that they'd be discarded. So there would be no way to identify the reviewer of an edit that was accepted, say, a year ago. Anonymous reviewing is standard for refereed academic journals, and discarding data after a reasonable retention period is completely normal (we already do it for logged-in edits). So IMO there's nothing sneaky or evasive about this. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Impact on retention of newbies

I've been dealing with PC on wikibooks for years and I think dewiki also has it. Why are people here discussing it as if it is new and mysterious? Have these people who talk about newbie retention spent any of their time helping actual newbies who are having problems? PC (when active) is in about 10 billionth place in the list of obstacles that newbies face. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you deal with IP newbies or those who have created an account and are soon autoconfirmed? —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Both, but mostly with autoconfirmed users who get steamed about something. That's why they leave, after all. Here's an example from a few days ago[4]. Maybe I could have done better in that one, but the outcome seems preordained given what had already happened. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The results from the Foundation's Editor Trends Study strongly suggests that German, Polish, Russian, and other wikis using Pending Changes/Flagged Revisions are not significantly different when it comes to recruiting and retaining newbies. In some cases, particularly Russian where all articles are under Flagged Revs, the retention of new editors is better than English. In plain English... No, it doesn't look like use of the extension hurts retention of newbies measurably, as in all the big Wikipedias, the rate of retention is bad and getting worse overall regardless of whether they use the tool. Steven Walling at work 23:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Apples and oranges Chzz ► 23:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How is comparing one Wikipedia to another apples and oranges? That's total nonsense. Steven Walling at work 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure either where you're coming from Chzz, but I'll take a shot at it. Once an editor has signed up and become auto-confirmed, the use of PC is unlikely to affect retention. However, PC can potentially impact the number of editors that create accounts in the first place by not getting them hooked first as IP editors. This seems like a very hard question to answer with any stats. Steven: Do you have some insight into this? —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So you mean how does PC impact recruitment of new editors, instead of retention? The Editor Trends Study focused primarily on retention rates rather than changes in recruitment, since the core question was, "Which editors are the ones that are leaving – are they the new editors or the more tenured ones?" However, if you look at, say Russian... they implemented Flagged Revs on all articles in 2008 and continued to have a higher percentage of newbies arriving and sticking around than most other large Wikipedias. It is a good idea to think about how strict quality measures might impact newbies, but I think it's pretty clear from the data that the drop off that has occurred in all communities was not made measurably worse in a few because they chose to use PC/FR. Steven Walling at work 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just realized... did you mean compared Flagged Revisions to Pending Changes was apples to oranges, Chzz? That makes more sense now that I think about it, though considering that Pending Changes is more lenient not less, I think the conclusion still stands. Steven Walling at work 00:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if "apples and oranges" was not sufficiently clear; what I meant was: The differences between those wikis and enwiki - in size, number of editors, policies and guidelines, and their specific choices in implementing the various flavours of hyperion frobnosticating endoswitch (FR is very different to PC) - mean that any comparison has to be treated with extreme caution. The "ethos", "mindset", "way of thinking" (for wont of better words) - on dewiki is quite distinct from enwiki. Their editor-base demographic is hugely different to ours. Enwiki has 155,000 active users; dewiki has 25,000 - that is, about 1/6th. Polish and Russian Wikipedia are even more "different". So, whilst of course some comparisons can be made, it does have to be treated with care. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the world like enwiki. Chzz ► 07:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's unfortunate at all, kinda one of the reasons I'm hanging around. Cliff (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Assumptions that the user bases will behave the same way do need to be treated with care, but assumptions that the user bases will not behave the same way also need to be treated with care. Guy Macon (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Preparation for what became phase 3

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Pending changes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive is mostly for the topics related to preparation of phase 3 of the RfC, but another phase 3 (questionaire phase) was also being discussed at the time.

Turning it off for now is an option

Steven Walling has made it clear that we are free to stop using PC until we make a final decision. The only restriction is that should we decide to dismantle the infrastructure for PC, the foundation will not set it back up again. There is no need to be so drastic. The end of the trial merely requires removal of PC from all articles. I believe this is the only way to move forward and it has nothing to do with broken promises. The loss of trust is only an issue for approval of a future trial. The problem today is that the supporters are in a panic to pass this RfC because there is no authority to have PC on any of the articles that it is presently applied to. This panic prevents reasonable discussion on the problems with PC and poisons efforts to reach consensus by trying to coerce users into approving something that they feel is seriously flawed. The best course of action is to acknowledge that there is no consensus currently, remove PC from all articles and then do the work needed to reach a consensus. For discussion purposes, we can apply PC to as many sandbox pages as needed so people can play with it. I'd like to try out several things with it that I just can't do on a real article. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I am in total agreement with that. Chzz ► 06:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Me too. I think that this clarification is extremely good news, as well as entirely reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You reading this section, PC supporters? You no longer have an excuse to keep PC on articles. Start removing articles from PC and honor the end of the trial. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 19:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me state here for the fourth time that if that is what it will take to end this distraction then go ahead and do it. What matters to me is the big decision, not whether it is in use right this second or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That would really help a lot I'd say. Any objections? Hobit (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Moi aussi. Collect (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Time to remove it. Looks like it is OK on the foundation's end and there have been enough objections to letting it continue. We even have direction on how to wrap up this trial. The "big questions" (if and how it an be used in the future) are still left open so continued discussion is great. However, nothing is being done right now that prevents the end of the trial. It did not end in consensus that there has been or will soon be successful implementation. We wouldn't let edits stand if there was this much division so why would we allow something that has such a possible impact on the project stand as is? A second trial after it is improved and usage is clarified is always a possibility. Time to take the lessons learned and do some retoolingCptnono (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The tool is working right now without any issues at all, removal under such circumstances would be extreme and unnecessary. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have is that there has never been consensus to continue. How can actually ending the trial we were supposed to end a while ago we "extreme"? Hobit (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There was consensus to continue till an improved version which is no longer on the horizon but that isn't a reason to switch off a beneficial tool that is working fine on a minimal number of articles. There is still more people that support the tools usage than object to it. If you want to switch the tool off then allow the community the option of voicing their opinion and initiating a community poll and ask them the question, keep or reject.Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sick of polls. And no there wasn't consensus for that, there was a vote for that. Hobit is correct, there has never been consensus to continue - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There has always and repeatedly been more editors in support of this tool than reject it. A few strong opposers of the tool here wanting to switch it off and being vocal about it is not the way to progress, go ahead, ask the community, open a RFC with the simple question, keep or reject. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The question, however, is not that simple. "Keep or reject" isn't exactly what we're talking about, we're talking more about having it in use while improvements are made. And no, I will not be creating a RfC at this time, but thank you for the suggestion. Something else I'm sick of is the misrepresentation of the opposition by some of the supporters, there have been accusations of users saying "SHUT IT DOWN NOW OR I WILL LEAVE OMG LOLZ", "Shut PC down! RAWR!", and "OH NOES THERE WAS NO PROPER CONSENSUS!", none of these are (afaict) actually quotes of any users in opposition to PC. Each of these all caps comments were left by supporters of PC, and yet you accuse the opposition of being the vocals ones? Frankly they are being no more or less vocal than the opposition - everybody deserves to get a say. Which brings me on to the point of opposition being a "minority" position. It really doesn't matter as much as you seem to think, in terms of consensus. There is much too much battleground mentality around here, and your (as well as everybody else's) constant insistence that this is a case of us vs. them (which polls only add to) is not helping. If you want consensus (and I'm starting to think more and more that a lot of users are not at all bothered, as long as they get their way), then you need to understand that an effort has to be made to keep everybody with legitimate opinions happy. This means you don't dismiss other user's opinions, and you instead at least attempt to compromise. A lot of this is obviously true for both sides - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you understand my position? I don't care about all that. Anything that helps protect the articles of living people here at wikipedia from demeaning vandalism and libelous additions and yet allows unconfirmed users a more open contributory environment than other current available article protections gets my support. A few users issues with that are meaningless to me, as I have said previously - I wouldn't even allow you an option on this. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

'm honestly, truly trying to understand this position but there are aspects to it I do not get. Let's say we take PC off of all articles right now but do not have the Foundation "flip the switch" and dismantle the whole apparatus. Then what? That is where it falls apart for me. Do we continue this RFC as planned or what? Like I've said if that is what it will take then do it, but I really don't understand how it is intended to affect what comes next. I'd really appreciate a clear explanation of that point. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Turning off the tool should have no impact on discussions about whether to use PC. The only reason to do it is because the last RfC said to do it. What is to be gained is that it shows the RfC meant something. When RfCs don't mean anything, why should people participate? But those in favor of PC should note that by not turning it off, you not merely risk losing public support, but risk losing the ability to gain consensus on guidelines controlling how PC is used. Without that, how can you ever administer it effectively? Wnt (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That clarifies matters for me in that that is more or less what I thought. I'm being asked to include this option in the questionnaire for phase three but I am at a loss as to how to phrase it as an option. Right now users are asked to simply say yes or no, keep it in some form to be determined by the questions that follow, or reject it outright. As the unclear nature of that one point was the impetus behind this entire process I felt it was important to get an answer to it. I'm not sure how this view isn't essentially "keep it in some form to be determined" as it does not demand the immediate total removal of the tool. So, how do I phrase the question? And if this temporary removal is in fact done isn't it a moot point anyway? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be removed from all articles to make it a moot point before the next phase is started. At that point, the wording for Q1 becomes clear, as I explained in another section: "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?" The remaining questions should be a discussion organized with one section for each major problem and improvement proposal. No open-ended navel gazing. e.g., stop talking about the uncertainty in the duties of a reviewer and solve the darn thing. I actually think it would be more helpful to defer Q1 to phase 4 after the specific issues have been worked, but I'm OK with including it now if you think it has any chance at consensus. —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The tool is working well on less than a thousand articles, there is no good reason to remove it without consensus or even a simple majority to do so. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Doggie, your suggested phrasing is not going to work. We can't approve usage of PC as it currently stands because it was turned on on a trial basis. We can't use the currently defined policies because there aren't any. That's why this process was necessary in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"as it currently stands" was indeed a poor choice of words. I was trying to say something about using the current implementation and interface to make it clear that users shouldn't !vote for it if they feel that changes are needed first. However, I still like the idea of deferring this to phase 4 because it will give us a chance to address your point about not having policies. I would like phase 3 to be a constructive effort to define the needed policies and agree on what changes, if any, are needed to obtain final approval. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Off2riobob--can you point to consensus to be using it right now? Hobit (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

O2RR has zero credibility. He can't point to any consensus to use it because there isn't any. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 13:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has at least some credibility. There have constantly been more people in favor of the tool than against it, the last poll was to continue usage till an improved version comes along, its just that the foundation has said unless we say we want the tool they are not upgrading so we find ourselves here. Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

End the trial

Note, I am not asking for !votes here. This is a suggestion for putting something on the RfC page, if people agree here

Many people the trial should end, and of the remainder, few object strongly to PC being removed.

Why hasn't it been removed from the articles? Because, without clear consensus - on this hotly-debated topic - admins are not confident enough to go ahead.

So let's show them if consensus is clear or not. The remaining discussion will be easier to phrase if this is done first.

Therefore - why don't we make a clear, easy proposal on the RfC page;

The Pending Changes trial ended many months ago, but around 1000 articles are still using PC protection.

Removing it from the these articles might help to clarify further discussions.

Proposal: Remove pending changes protection from all articles, for now, with no prejudice against reinstating it in in the future, in some form, based upon consensus and discussion.

This proposal does not affect potential future use of Pending Changes; it is only to end the trial.

Please indicate support, oppose, with brief reasoning. Comments longer than 1000 characters may be moved to the talk page for further discussion.

Note, until 11:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC) the above suggestion included the additional text , and removing 'Reviewer' status, - after discussions below, to keep this simple, I removed it. Chzz ► 11:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we put this on the RfC page, unless there is significant opposition here.

This does not preclude any other options for this RfC.

I'm sure the wording could be tweaked. Please comment. Chzz ► 09:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, since this issue is at the forefront of a lot of people's minds at the moment. However, it would probably be worthwhile deciding who would judge consensus before starting. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) People might need reviewer status to test the interface during discussions. Do we really need to ask this? Everyone agrees that the trial is over, just remove the PC protection. I'm afraid that a simple question like this will get lots of "why does it matter?" responses because they don't about how much those articles are taking over the discussion and preventing us from getting anywhere. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- The truth is, you know you won't get consensus if you ask the community and as opponents of the tool you are attempting to go on and on and on here and get someone to switch it of without consensus for you, go ahead ask the community as that the only legitimate non disruptive thing to do. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@UncleDouggie a) admins will have it (bundled with SysOp), b) if we don't remove it in one simple sweep, it is going to be very hard to remove it from people later, c) there is a test-wiki for PC (link to follow ASAP) Chzz ► 10:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Link http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs Chzz ► 10:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with UncleDouggie that it is not necessary to remove the reviewer right. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Kingpin13, reason for doing it while we can is, if some later debate results in new requirements for people to get the right, it'll be quite tricky to remove it. Well, we could, but I forsee people complaining about it, and that causing trouble later. However - importantly - let's not get hung up on that one minor point. If you're not happy with that part, we can just remove that from the proposal before we go live with it. So, can you clarify - if you want us to remove the 'reviewer' part from the proposal, that's fine; otherwise, you're happy with it? Chzz ► 10:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I can understand that there is a sticking point on "if the trial has ended why do we still have pages under protection", but I don't see the point of removing the reviewer right. As it happens, I also don't agree that the pending changes should be removed (consensus can change and since people have seen it working there is no clear consensue to remove). However, if removing PC from the pages will allow us to move forward, I will accept it as a necessary evil. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. So we do not get side-tracked on that issue, I have just removed the text , and removing 'Reviewer' status, from the proposed proposal (!) above. Any other comments? Does anyone strongly object to us trying this? I suggest we wait a while, to allow others to comment here - but not too long; this is only a proposal; if it doesn't get support, so be it. 24 hours? Or do we need to allow more time for others to respond here? Chzz ► 11:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mis-read that it was a proposed proposal. Not getting my head around these things.. Sounds like a good proposal to me, 24 hours seems reasonable. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I heartily approve of this proposed proposal. However, rather than refer people to http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs (which might be open to the whims of the devs) I think we should say that it will be allowed on a few non-article pages for the purposes of testing. e.g. Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing, its sub-pages and user sub-pages that the user requests it for.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Pending changes has shown appreciable value especially for BLPs, as evinced by repeated and extensive discussions here. Removing it will cause actual harm to Wikipedia, both in regard to showing how unseriously we take contentious material in BLPs, and in making this a matter of public record to boot. The concern raised was whether reviewers would have liability, and that has been laid to rest as the legal requirement is that WP be able to remove material upon legal notice, and OTRS fills that requirement. Thus there are no real grounds for pending changes not to go ahead, and those who fear that they will be culpable simply need only to decline "reviewer" status. The rest of us will manage. And as pending changes is improved, we can do even better. Collect (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Collect, did you actually read anything here? Especially the bit in red at the top of the section? This isn't the place to !/vote on the issue itself - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I also read Please indicate support, oppose, with brief reasoning. which seemed a bit self-explanatory. Did you miss that in the highlighted section? Collect (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The highlighted section is what's being considered as the next things to discuss, but we don't want to actually start discussing it yet (we first want to establish that it is appropriately worded, relevant etc.). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Collect: There is a line, in red text, at the top of this section, which states: "Note, I am not asking for !votes here. This is a suggestion for putting something on the RfC page, if people agree here". I apologize if that was not entirely clear. I'm asking if anyone minds, if this proposal is put on the RfC page. If it is, then you can object to it there. All I am asking - here - is, do you really have a strong objection to our asking that question, on the RfC page? If you do not, would you mind removing the 'object' part of your comment above. Thanks. Chzz ► 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What actually is being proposed here? An RFC open for 30 days with community notices on the single question of while we continue discussing the future of pending protection do you think all the articles should be removed from the protection? Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Collect, I acknowledge your objection, although I do not understand it; after all, it very clearly states, This proposal does not affect potential future use of Pending Changes; it is only to end the trial.. I'm sorry, if you cannot agree to it - I'd like everyone to accept that this is not a terrible idea, even if you do not feel it is essential in your view. It has no bearing at all on any other things happening in the RfC. It is just to try and eliminate that one concern which is fogging the issue. Chzz ► 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Off2riorob, all I am suggesting is that the above green box be put on the RfC page as a proposal, and that we see if there is a consensus. That is all. It has no direct bearing on whether the questionnaire goes ahead or not, although clearly some of the question wording might need changing, if the existing PC was removed - but I think that would only help clarify things. Chzz ► 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

On its own? As a single question RFC style and open for 30 days? Totally separate from the questionnaire? If you add this proposal what percentages do you have in mind for acting on the proposal? May I suggest if one more than half the pollers supports removal we shall remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, no. All that is being suggested is, that that proposal be put on the RfC page. Anything else could happen - such as the questionnaire thing, or whatever; preferably with some agreement, here. This is a very simple proposal, just to try and resolve one specific thing. That is all. It is what it is. Chzz ► 14:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One point that Off2riorob has made is that we should decide now what numerical value we should accept as an outcome and how long we should wait, not decide at the end. 30 days seems too long - I'd say 7 days at WP:CENT should be enough. And 50% should be sufficient either way. YMMV Worm^TT · (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested any numeric vote, Worm That Turned. This is a proposal, for discussion, aimed at reaching consensus. There is no need to count anything. Only Off2riorob has mentioned 30 days. It is quite likely that consensus would be clear within 7 days, I agree - but the consensus process does not work to any deadline. It's a discussion. Chzz ► 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should allow a longer period of time than seven days to allow all interested parties to poll and I would also request that previous to the RFC being posted you discuss closure methods and guidelines. Standard WP:RFC should be applied to what is imo quite a major decision as the wheels are not dropping off and the trial has been over for so long as to be close to irrelevant to removal of the protection. Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting an RfC. You are misunderstanding. All I am suggesting is, we put that green box, above, on Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011, and see if there is consensus to simply finish off the trial. That is all. It has no affect on any other suggestions. It is certainly not a "major decision". Off2riorob, it would be helpful if you could say either "OK then" or "No, I object", so we can avoid a crazy-long discussion about a very simple suggestion. Thanks. Chzz ► 14:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was reading the "Please indicate support, oppose, with brief reasoning" as a straw poll, precluding discussion on the page. Perhaps that should be looked at if you are looking for discussion. As you say Chzz, consensus shouldn't work to a deadline, and Off2riorob, I agree, there's no rush. Forget I mentioned 7 days Worm^TT · (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Is everyone happy now? To return to the point I was making, perhaps the text should be as below...

The Pending Changes trial ended many months ago, but around 1000 articles are still using PC protection.

Removing it from these articles might help to clarify further discussions.

Proposal: Remove pending changes protection from all articles, for now, with no prejudice against reinstating it in the future, in some form, based upon consensus and discussion.

This proposal does not affect potential future use of Pending Changes; it is only to end the trial. It does not affect the ability to apply pending changes for testing purposes, to a few non-article pages. e.g. Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing, its sub-pages and user sub-pages that the user requests it for.

Please indicate support or oppose with brief reasoning. Comments longer than 1000 characters may be moved to the talk page for further discussion.

N.B. Again, the above text is suggested text for going on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. It is not an actual request for people to support or oppose on this talk page.

Thanks.

Yaris678 (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we really going to allow the main thrust of the RFC to be put on the back burner for this sideshow? This RFC is about the future of pending changes, and this proposal is specifically not on that topic. This is a needless distraction/delaying tactic. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to be a massive sticking point though. So many comments along the lines of "we were promised a trial, that didn't happen". In either scenario - PC ends up being removed from the pages it's on to alow sensible debate or tpeople he community gives a clear steer that it wants to keep PC - we are able to actually move forward. It might stall things temporarily, but I think that it's a necessary evil. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's stopping four or five from feeling we can move ahead. Over 100 users felt able to participate in the first two phases. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I count 51 people. I really do want to move forward, but like it or not, this IS a sticking point. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK - allow a "formal vote" - with the understanding that if the proposal to remove pending chages does not get a majority in favor in a set period of time (say 240 hours), that those whose opposition to pending changes is based on it not being formally ended drop that objection. If they won't, then this is one more horse being designed by a committee. Collect (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And how does this effect the main established purpose of the RFC? Are we expected to sit and wait while this sideshow goes on or can we proceed? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We can run both together, side by side. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess. I'm kind of wondering why we bothered modifying the questions to specifically allow this option, but if that's what it will take to appease those obsessed with this point to a degree that they will discuss nothing else then let's just do it and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy to forget that those 942 articles even exist and discuss the future of pending changes. However, no one else, especially the supporters of PC, is willing to do that. This affects the proposed RfC questions and the analysis of the results. If those 942 articles didn't exist, we would have had no problems on question 1. In fact, I submit that Q1 would have been a moot point because it would be a simple case of: keep discussing it or dismantle it? Instead, we're faced with a Q1 that will explode as in the first straw poll. If you want the debate to move forward, we must divorce it from those 942 articles and the only way that people seem mentally able to accept that is to actually remove the protection. I and others are trying to move this forward, please stop accusing us of being obstructionist. —UncleDouggie (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok fine, you're not an obstructionist and you want to move forward. Good, excellent, me too. So, there is a general agreement to run the "side" RFC. We can do so concurrently with phase three. So what are we waiting for now? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, there is already a closed poll at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage which says "hard stop date of December 31". So it looks like what happens is, the poll isn't acted on. Then we get a new poll, and if we vote to stop the trial again, it doesn't get acted on again. But if random variation somehow gets 51% to continue, then we're told to shut up about it - nothing ever happened, the process is just fine. I think that by this point, before anyone accepts such a heads-you-win-tails-I-lose process, we deserve to hear just exactly who is going to shut down the trial if the vote says to shut it down, and why that person will shut it down now even though he didn't shut it down in December. Wnt (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It says. "a hard stop date of December 31, 2010 will be set for a new poll on interim use of Pending Changes in the event that the release of the new version is delayed." - and clearly the new version has been delayed, in fact they are saying unless we confirm ongoing support for the tool that it is not worth them doing the work, which brings us to this point now - actually the comment there asserts a new poll for continued useage which I also support but this attempt from Beeblebrox is a fact finding attempt to find out and address users experience and issues with the tool so we can improve it and set usage details or reject it as is the outcome of the discussions as presented - none of this requires or demands the removal of the tool from the articles it is currently on. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The proposed question is fine. However, I think we should give users some background as to why we are proposing it and how it can help move this process forward or I fear that others will also interpret it to be obstructionist. The rationale needs to be concise, but it's not fair to just throw this out there after so much discussion. I'm also fine with posting two discussion summaries, one in favor of removal and one in favor of keeping it for now. Here's a first crack at why it should be removed:

"Discussion of the possible final approval of pending changes has become bogged down by the 942 articles currently under pending changes protection. It has become impossible to formulate up or down questions when there are actually three possible outcomes:

Keep pending changes in use on the 942 articles and continue discussing how it is to be used in the future.
Remove pending changes from all articles until there is a consensus based policy in place.
Reject pending changes entirely and permanently dismantle the infrastructure for it.

The first straw poll failed due to the presence of more than two options that made it impossible to agree on the meaning of the results. By removing the current 942 articles from pending changes, we will be able to focus future discussions and move the process forward faster and with less conflict. Furthermore, given that the trial ended long ago, the continued use of pending changes on articles represents a broken promise to some users and it will be difficult to get them to participate in a meaningful discussion until the trial is shutdown. The WMF has made it clear that we are free to remove pending changes from all articles while discussion continues with no adverse impact to future usage, so long as the infrastructure remains in place. This proposal is in-effect a choice between options 1 and 2 above. Option 3 is off the table for now. If you feel that pending changes should be dismantled, please support this proposal as it stands."

—UncleDouggie (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I browsed the above discussion, and I can't see a glaring objection to asking about temporary removal before we move on to other questions. It seems like Phase 2 clearly suggested people support that idea, and UncleDouggie is correct in reminding people that the WMF doesn't have a stake in whether it's continued to be used on the current ~1,000 articles that were in the trial. Can we go ahead and put Chzz's suggestion up on the RFC? It seems like a valid interim question while we figure out what the next stage should look like. Steven Walling at work 01:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The part that has always seemed unclear to me is who was ultimately responsible for switching it off/removing it/whatever when the predetermined end date for the trial was reached. Obviously many users blame the Foundation, but was it really their responsibility, or did we, the community, fail by dropping the ball and not telling them what we wanted done next? If we did tell them, when and where was it done? What was their reply? I'm asking because I didn't participate in that phase of these discussions and I honestly do not know the answer. It doesn't directly affect this current discussion but given all the talk about broken promises and rebuilding trust I suppose it is an issue that should be explored at some point. Not in the RFC itself of course, that won't help matters, but I'm not so sure we've really explored why and how we ended up here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The failure to end the trial at the appointed time was all our own doing, as was the spectacular fireworks show in the first straw poll. It was up to us to remove the articles from PC and we failed. Had we rejected PC outright, the WMF would have taken care of it during the dismantling process, but we weren't close to consensus for that. Jimbo, and to a lesser extent the WMF, were responsible for the failure of the second straw poll. We were misled, probably unintentionally, on the implication of removing the articles from PC at that point. Then Jimbo rammed the poll through, despite all the pleas not to do it, without any real buy-in from the WMF to fulfill the promises that he made. So now we're here trying to pick up the pieces and we really can't afford anymore mistakes. I wish that someone had blanked that first straw poll before it got off the ground, but all we can do now is not repeat it again. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording of a proposal to end the trial

Continuing on from #End the trial, I would like to propose that we do an RfC to to determine whether we should remove PC protection from all articles until we decide what we are going to do. The RfC would be in the standard format, as below.

Any thoughts?

Yaris678 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Pending Changes trial ended many months ago, but around 1000 articles are still using PC protection.

Proposal: Remove pending changes protection from all articles, for now, with no prejudice against reinstating it in the future, in some form, based upon consensus and discussion.

This proposal does not affect potential future use of Pending Changes; it is only to end the trial. It does not affect the ability to apply pending changes for testing purposes, to a few non-article pages. e.g. Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing, its sub-pages and user sub-pages that the user requests it for.

Discussion of whether and how we want to use Pending Changes in the medium and long term are being overshadowed by a lack of consensus on what to do with Pending Changes in the short term. This RfC is an attempt to reach a consensus on that short-term issue.

Please indicate support or oppose with brief reasoning in the comments section. Comments longer than 1000 characters, responses to the comments of others and general discussion of the topic should go in the discussion section.

Comments

Support This should have happened already. Example1 15:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Pending changes is working fine. Example2 15:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Why this is essential

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, nequ. Example1 15:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

N.B. Again, the above text is suggested text for going on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. It is not an actual request for people to support or oppose on this talk page.

Thanks.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Two days of discussion with 11 hours of inactivity seems like enough, so I took it live. I also updated WP:CENT and made a request for the watchlist notice. Someone should probably put in a request for the next issue of the signpost as well. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed wording of a proposal to end the trial

Looks OK to me. As this has now been discussed (albeit with slightly amended wording) since 09:51, 22 March 2011 (above), with almost everyone agreeing to give it a try, I'd hope we could implement this pretty soon - maybe 24 hours from now, or something? (But if others think it needs more discussion, shout up) Chzz ► 13:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be clarified how long this will stay open for and what are the closing percentages. I have suggested two weeks and a simple majority to action the request. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not turn it into a vote (ie 'simple majority'); I think we could just assess the consensus at the end of it. I rather expect it'll be obvious. I think 2 weeks would be OK. I think 1 might be enough, but I don't really mind. Chzz ► 14:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As you know, I consider the removal will be detrimental to ongoing discussion and feel that most of the people wanting to remove the tool from these articles also don't support the tool and feel that the removal will result in what is tantamount to switching off the tool and as the interest in ongoing discussion will dissipate if the tool is removed from view, and a consensus of around seventy percent will be requested to switch the tool back on again we will never see it again so I would like to allow all interested parties to comment so one week would be imo too short. Consensus has all the expectations of a high degree of support is required and if in doubt reverts to the current position. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The current position is no consensus for PC to be on, remember? And you're worries are unfounded, since we know that the support are using the trial as an excuse to keep PC on indefinitely, and have no reason to believe the opposition will use the end of the trial as an excuse to keep it off indefinitely. So really the risk of foul play is greatly decreased if we turn it off (since the "risk" if we leave it on has become a reality). However, I'm not outright opposed to a longer time, but I also think one week will turn out to be enough, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As you know what we actually have is support to have the tool continue on until a improved version is ready. Also , what we actually have is an ignore all rules working less than a thousand articles without any wheels dropping off. The opposition to the tool are the people here demanding it is turned off and that a seventy percent consensus will be required at some vague point in the distant future will be required to turn it back on again, so my position is not unfounded, actually I see it as a comunity wide RFC to switch the tool off and as such should follow WP:RFC guidelines - anyway, a week is far to short for such a decision. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no consensus for PC to be off (regardless of whether you define "off" as "turned off permanently by the WMF" or "all articles removed from PC and returned to long-term semi-protection"). If we actually had a consensus to do the latter, it would have been done already. I see no consensus to stop using PC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is also no consensus to keep using it. Many of us believe that means we should revert to the pre-trial status in the interest of moving the long-term usage discussion forward. The short-term usage is infecting every discussion and proposed community question. I respect the "status quo" argument. I just feel that it is leading us to a stalemate in which PC will be indefinitely applied to the current 942 articles and will never see broader usage. While I don't like PC in it's current form, I believe that it does have great potential in some cases. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is at least a weak consensus to keep using it for these articles (and thus, logically, to keep using it, because it is not possible to both use it on these articles and to stop using it altogether), but beyond that, I agree there is currently no clear consensus on any of the fine points. Should it be used for BLPs only? We have no consensus. Should we use it for a hundred thousand articles? We have no consensus.

"No consensus" means "no consensus"; it does not mean "and so we are required to turn it off". In fact, as the English Wikipedia's default action (for better or worse) is always to bow to inertia, "no consensus at this time" means "do not change the use until there is a positive consensus to change". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's one of the problems, because some would say that the "status quo" is to have PC off, because it was only a trial which made so that PC is now on, and it is not fair to say that a trial can continue to be the status quo after it is over. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of statement about why removing the protection might help

I'm not sure about this change. I wasn't entirely sure about the earlier wording though, so let's discuss it here and come up with something better. I guess the point we want to get over is that having the protection going now is a sticking point for some people.

Original text "The Pending Changes trial ended many months ago, but around 1000 articles are still using PC protection. Removing it from these articles might help to clarify further discussions."
Off2riorob's text "The Pending Changes trial ended many months ago, but around 1000 articles are still using PC protection. Some users want these articles removed from Pending protection."
Possible improvement "The Pending Changes trial ended many months ago, but around 1000 articles are still using PC protection. This has repeatedly got in the way of us in having a calm discussion about the future of Pending Changes."

Anyone got a better idea?

Yaris678 (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

- I removed it because this is imo a false statement - Removing it from these articles might help to clarify further discussions - the might says it all. This Some users want these articles removed from Pending protection. is a simple factual statement. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The proposal should just clearly state what is to be done. We should then have one summary statement for each viewpoint explaining why the proposal is being brought forward. We will never agree on a single statement, which is why we're having the RfC. However, we can easily have the proponents of each case come up with something similar to a nomination statement. I already wrote one for the support view in the earlier section on ending the trial. Don't make this hard for people. I don't want to be hounding everyone that they didn't understand the question before they !voted. The rules for each statement should be to concisely sum up the discussion on this page that support the statement without attacking the other side.—UncleDouggie (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How about simply "Please take the time to read through other's comments with an open mind, before you state your view."? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My proposed statement might be over the magic 1000 character limit and it doesn't just have my own view but actual instructions for responding to the proposal. Dumping this proposal on people who haven't gone through the pain of this talk page isn't fair to them. I believe that we can come up with two universal summaries and still have a place to document our personal feelings under our own !vote. Why do we bother having nominations at RfA? I'm proposing the same logic here even though we're discussing a proposal and not a person. —UncleDouggie (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just added some sections to the green box that I think reflect what we are talking about. I have deliberately filled in the sections with Lorem ipsum so someone else can write the first draft of each.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

UncleDouggie, I can see what you are getting at with this text but I think there are two issues with it:

It makes it look like we were only discussing three options until now. That's part of the problem... we were discussing way more.
By saying "If you feel that pending changes should be dismantled, please support this proposal as it stands." You make it look like if you don't want it dismantled you should vote against the poposal, which isn't necesarily true. I know that is not a perfect deduction from the statement but that is what some people will think.

Therefore, maybe it should say something like:

“

Discussion of the possible the way forward with Pending Changes has become bogged down by the 942 articles currently under Pending Changes protection. We have been considering things of multiple timescales simultaneously:

Short term - What do we do with PC now?
Medium term - What sort of things do we want PC for? How do we do that? What needs to change? How do we work together to decide these things?
Long term - Do we want pending changes in some form or other?

For those who think Pending Changes can never work, the short-term and long-term issues are the same thing and the medium-term issue is irrelevant. For those who think it is wonderful the short-term and long-term are also practically identical. However, for the pragmatic people, who fall into neither camp, this conflation is getting in the way of the medium-term issue. If we deal with some of the medium-term issues then we may be able to address the long-term issue. This proposal should solve the short term issue. It should also address some of the concerns of those who complain about "broken promises" and "two months is two months" and allow us to work together in a more productive atmosphere.

”

Any thoughts? Yaris678 (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yea, i have some thoughts. I thought this side RFC was not about the future of PC but rather how it is being used right now. Let's keep it limited to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's part of what I was trying to say. That's why it says "This proposal should solve the short term issue." Was that not clear? Yaris678 (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see what you mean though... maybe my text is far too expansive. An alternative would be to drop the whole reasons-for-reasons-against idea and have a statement along the lines of "Discussion of whether and how we want to use Pending Changes in the medium and long term are being overshadowed by a lack of consensus on what to do with Pending Changes in the short term. This RfC is an attempt to reach a consensus on that issue."

Yaris678 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Been bold and made the change. Yaris678 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed notifications about the proposal

To avoid the concerns we have had in the past about canvassing, I think it's important that we decide here where we want notifications, and then do our best to stick to that (although it will be difficult to prevent users who haven't seen this from writing notifications. I'd suggest we just go with the Signpost and a watchlist notice. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can control this for something as radioactive as PC. I would like to see a posting at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion at least. —UncleDouggie (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The previous phases were noted at WP:CENT and on a watchlist notice. The signpost was willing to write up phase three as well but it has apparently been assigned to purgatory. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:CENT, watchlist notice, and a short note/link at the Village Pump proposals section would suffice. Steven Walling at work 19:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've added a watchlist notice. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD on changes by Off2RioRob

I notice that KingPin13 suggested using WP:BRD for this change by Off2RioRob. Some points/questions for Rob that may help clarify the situation:

Rob, do you think that the proposal does not need a section with some reasons to oppose it?
I think the way you put the reasons to support it is too simplistic. Yes, some people are insisting on some things, but if it was as simple as that I would be happy to tell them to jump.
I think you might have misunderstood the “why this is essential” bit. That isn’t text to go in the actual RfC. It is an example of the sort of thing that someone might put in the “Discussion” section. That is why it is signed by Example1
I agree with you that the text in the reasons-to-support section wasn't perfect, which is why I have suggested alternative text, above.

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

Made my own bold changes that I think will address some of your concerns. Yaris678 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

phase three now live

I've gone ahead and archived phase two and initiated phase three. The main objection was that PC is still on as we move into this phase. It was still on in the first two phases, it has been repeatedly indicated to those voicing this objection that if they can find an admin willing to remove it they are free to proceed with doing so, and it is still entirely possible for that to occur while phase three is live.

This is, in my opinion, The Big One©, the phase that will lead us out of the darkness of confusion and into the light of consensus. If you know users who have not yet participated, please encourage them to do so now. They can be assured that their arguments will not be attacked and their voice will be heard in the final say-so no matter what far out ideas they may have. My sincere thanks to everyone who has participated so far, even the ones who have been a pain in my ass. Scrutiny is a good thing and will only improve the quality of the eventual result. I do not intend to participate in further discussion on this page that is not related to moving forward with the decision phase of the RFC as I have decided to focus solely on steering this boat towards that far shore and not the actual issues of PC as those will be decided by the outcome of this very long and cumbersome process.

On that note, several suggestions have been made as to how to evaluate consensus once phase three is over. I thought the idea of enlisting the crats was good one but they ignored my request. If it is decided here that it is in fact their job I guess that option is open but it seems obvious they don't want to do it. Obviously, no one user should or probably even could, close this. The idea of a jury has been tossed around several times and at the moment I'm seeing that as the most viable option. How to formulate it would therefore be the question. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just revert the page; I'm amazed you've done that, with such clear opposition shown here - and ongoing discussion. I can understand a need for bold steps, and I'm sure your intents are good; however, I think that was a serious mistake, not in line with consensus, and that you've imposed your own viewpoint on this RfC. You don't seem to be listening to discussion; you appear determined to do things your own way. I'll be interested to hear what others think. Chzz ► 19:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree to some extent, sick of seeing these bias questions and polls. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are objections. The only issue on which they seemed to speak with one voice was that PC should be removed while this phase is active. At this point I consider it like a request to block someone at ANI that no admin will act on. If no admin is willing to act on the suggestion even though it has been "cleared" by the WMF then there is nothing this process can do about it or should be further concerned with. I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened, but it still could if those calling for it can find an admin to go ahead and do it. I don't consider ti my responsibility to do so as I am obviously deeply involved and have opposed this idea as pointless obstructionism, and I don't feel that forward progress should be impeded by what is essentially a procedural objection to another procedure. As I've said more times than I can count, I agree that process was flawed. That doesn't mean this process needs to be held hostage until the problems caused by those flaws are resolved. Maybe those who want this done should post at WP:AN, I would imagine they could in fact find somebody willing to go ahead and do the removal. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the request for uninvolved admins to consider this [5]. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There you say you're making consensus clearer. Let me just say that nothing which has been done on this page thus far has even resembled consensus decision making. What you've just done is split every single user apart, so they can rage on their own pages and not interact much with each other. How is this working together to reach a mutually agreeable solution? Answer: it's not. As to the problems here, they are not limited simply to having PC turned on. Take question one: it has almost the exact same problem this poll had. You say "in some form". So to simplify things down a bit to let me explain why this doesn't work: Imagine there are only two possible ways to implement PC (for example, on all BLPs, or only on tennis related articles). 1/3 of users think it should be on all BLPs, but would rather it be off completely than on all tennis articles. 1/3 of users think that it should be on all tennis articles, but would rather it be off completely than on all BLPs. And 1/3 of users think it should be off altogether. So what you have is an apparent support of PC (with 2/3 majority), but in reality, no matter what you do you will have a 2/3 majority opposed to it. This is an example, obviously the case scenario is entirely unrealistic, but the principal remains. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have re-appended the section which sought to provide a general summary of the past few hundred thousand words as best I could. I rather fear the new concept of collating a hundred or two hundred lengthy sets of disparate opinions will not lead us to any conclusions in this decade :) . Collect (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What the hell. ~~You haven't re-appended, you've reverted phase three altogether~~. That section belongs on the talk page anyway as it was a discussion about the RFC not about pending changes. Resurrect it here if you like, I am also already working on a separate page for analysis of phase two which anyone is more than welcome to assist with. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

ok I see that's just what you did the first time, not the second, let's just continue this here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Phase three: are we doing it or not?

You guys are all over the map with all the talk above. This is exactly the clusterfuck I was trying to avoid. What are we doing here? Are we discussing rephrasing a few of the questions and proceeding, or are we rejecting the review/recommend phase altogether because a couple people don't like the format? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually let me put in another way. Phase two was an attempt to find what common ground already existed, and I think it was largely successful in that regard. I asked for feedback but what I got instead was complaints about the fact that we were asking the big question, the one that has been the intended central focus of this RFC since day one. The primary goal of this entire process is now being pushed to the back burner. The design of phase three was intended to answer the big question and to formulate a rough guide to using PC should the answer to the big question be yes. It was also deliberately designed to be simple, and to not draw users into arguments with one anther. Instead users could say their piece and be done. Then a jury of trusted Wikipedians would read every last one of the filled out questionnaires and see what commonalities were extant in the replies. Based on that combined with the previous two phases an answer would have finally been delivered to the big question, and (if the answer was keep) a rough guide to how the community expected it to be used would be published, and the RFC would be over. We would have a draft policy which could be improved over time in the normal manner of such things. What is being proposed instead is a fight between proposals that will be an ungodly mess and will, ironically, take it as read that we are indeed keeping PC. If that is the road we are going down I will have nothing further to do with it. Up until yesterday things were fairly civilized here despite the arguing. This proposal for what is being characterized as a "real" RFC is going to be the dog fight I have been trying very hard to avoid. I'm open to discussing the phrasing of the questions but I am not open to this counter-proposal as it will be a contentious nasty mess and far less likely to result in anything we can use anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with rephrasing the questions and proceeding, so long as we are acknowledging that the community does not agree on what the "central question" should be right now. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked you at your talk page to help me formulate a question with a bit more detail than simply adding "for now" and although you replied you did not supply any proposed language. As I understand it you believe that PC should be removed while the RFC is underway, and you want a question in the RFC asking other users if they feel the same way. That doesn't really make sense to me so I assume I am still not grasping some part of your argument. I would very much like to see how the question could be changed to represent your view and I ask you again to please help me do so. It is somewhat difficult for me to do so since I don't feel I fully understand the position. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like two issues are being conflated here. One issue is "the big question:" do we keep it at all, or reject it entirely? The other is: do we keep using it while the discussion is underway or do we turn it off since we all agree that the trial period is over? And we do all agree on that. That's something isn't it? Now, how do we separate those two related but ultimately separate issues? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think I've got it, see "proposed new wording for question one" subsection above. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed wording looks great to me. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The way we keep it straight is to first remove all articles from the trial, which I am encouraged to see that we actually have consensus to do. I'm not able to do it or I would whip up a Twinkle script to help zip through them in a semi-automated fashion. Once this is done, it should be clear that your "big question" becomes a rather small checkpoint: "Should we continue attempting to reach a consensus on the use of PC or should we give up and dismantle it now?" IMO, we shouldn't waste our time asking because it's clear that there wouldn't be consensus to dismantle today, so why waste everyone's time? Let's just get to the heart of the matter and deal with the issues. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Theres no consensus to remove any articles. I f you think you have consensus then ask the community, if they agree. I realise you are one of the strongest people against pending protection but please don't assert the same position on to the community when they have constantly come out with more users on the side of continued trial or useage in some manner. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Guys, please see the proposed new wording of question one which makes this discussion entirely moot. If the new wording of questions one, three, and six is generally acceptable we can re-deploy phase three. If ya'll want to have a fourth phase, which I very much do not support, you can plan that without me. I'm much more keen to move on to discussing how we assemble the jury to evaluate phases 1-3 and publish a statement based on those results. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the questions as they are now, and I think that we actually shouldn't over-think it, because editors can comment on how they would see things differently than what the wording of a question implies. But I also note that at least one other editor has asked for more time, so I would suggest respecting that. As for the discussion about whether there is or is not consensus for removing PC from articles, I'd hazard a guess that, as with pretty much everything here, there isn't really consensus either way: no consensus to keep, no consensus to remove. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I was referring to consensus that the trial is over, to which there has only been one objection. —UncleDouggie (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe we need consensus that the trial is over, that is a fact. It has been over for quite some time now, what is less clear is what was supposed to happen afterwards, which is exactly why we are here now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You have said numerous times that admins are welcome to remove all articles from PC. How is that not a clear next step? —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like some intend to begin "phase 3" - individual questionnaires - soon. I think that is a bad idea. Others have objected too, but if we are considered a "small but vocal" group again. and it goes ahead, then so be it; I won't keep repeating, I'll just state my objections once;

Consensus requires discussion.

I don't think questionnaires will help form consensus. I don't see how we could evaluate them. We should consider that before doing it. It's been indicated that some 'jury' (undefined - how will that actually happen?) will be able to ponder all the questionnaires, and come to a nice, simple "conclusion"; this YES/NO answer, which I do not think is possible, desirable, or appropriate. Consensus needs discussion, and consideration for all viewpoints. This seems a way of forcing a yes/no. If forced - the answer will indeed be "yes" - but that ignores the strong feelings of a very large portion of our community.

Basic question: if this results in 30% support removal for now, 15% support total removal, and 55% support keeping it - then what? (or whatever the figures are)

On the questionnaires, many users will express opinions or ideas that are clearly based on misunderstanding. How can other users respond to those things? Are we to edit each user's questionnaire and add queries and comments? I imagine some of you will scream NO - well, how else can we discuss their opinions? Are we going to see PC debates repeated over 50+ userspace pages?
Are we saying there is no room for discussion? Beeblebrox said there should be no phase 4, and that some "results" would be published, based on the questionnaires. If some users have answered based on misinformation - how can we talk about that?
An alternative - or additional - idea has been discussed above, in #Issues to be resolved - a way of discussing things on the RfC page, but keeping it under control (not too long). Is that idea being dismissed entirely? Surely, an RfC is all about discussing ideas, not just stating them.
There are many unaddressed concerns raised on this page. For example - back to question 1, regarding the problems of a 3-way choice (in #Proposed new wording for question one). Remember the mess in the straw poll, which led to much of the subsequent frustration - e.g. see archive 2 of that polls talk page. (There are other concerns too, such as those in #Specific comments on Q2-Q10).

I will try to show I am not being obstructionist by offering specific, clear solutions (instead of just problems);

If some of you insist on individual questionnaires,

Please also allow discussion on the RfC page itself; controlled as discussed above - keeping comments short, and moving lengthy discussion over here as necessary.
Consider adding another question, after the first - a very rough, draft wording;

If the PC trial is ended, now - removed from the existing c. 1000 articles - what do you think the next steps should be? Could we form some committee to evaluate ideas, look for consensus, and work out a specific proposal to put to the community (perhaps after a fixed time of 1 month or so)? The committee might propose a further strictly limited implementation of PC, with a very clearly defined scope, designed to produce measurable, specific results - which would need agreement by the community before it began. Would that be acceptable?

(I think this would be better proposed on the RfC page itself, but if that is not possible, maybe it has to be a question. I have an alternative possible way to resolve this predicament, which I will put in #End the trial below. If that happens - and PC is removed - the questions would all need rewording, including this one. Removal of PC "for now" does not, however, mean the question is unnecessary. Forming a committee to work out a proposal for community discussion at a later time should not be off the cards; it is a very sensible way forwards, as I've suggested before)

Chzz ► 09:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that questionnaires are a bad idea. Furthermore, I thought we learned the lesson of working through how to evaluate something before doing it from the first straw poll. Yet here we are with no concrete idea of what to do with the mound of data that might be collected. Many might just give up of course. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally see the questionnaires as a good idea. Assuming they have good uptake, they will show the community's opinion without the vocal noise on either side (which is where the actual consensus is lost). However, I do agree with UncleDouggie that we should agree how to interpret the results before throwing the questionnaire out there. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

While I may disagree today on the utility of the questionnaires, I respect your reasoned opinion and I would be happy to be proved wrong if we first have a plan for evaluating the results. To that end, it might be useful to take a look at the old RfA Review attempt that permanently stalled at the phase of analyizing the 200+ questionnaires. I wasn't involved with that, but Beeblebrox participated so perhaps he could shed more light on why it failed and what will be different in this effort. —UncleDouggie (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I only participated as a respondent. From what I can tell that process failed because despite months of discussion on how to formulate the questions and so forth they apparently had not had any discussion whatsoever of what process would be used to analyze the results until after they already had nearly 300 responses. One user read the replies of everyone whose name he recognized, and apparently that is all the work that ever went into analyzing the results. It appears that everyone simply walked away due to the sheer volume of replies. If we do the jury idea we will have commitments beforehand to do the work, and the work can be split up among the jury. It's possible we could even have "alternates" as they do in many jury trials to replace anyone not capable or willing to complete their part. I also plan to be a sort of clerk for the jury, making sure every reply is read by at least one, hopefully two, of the jurors. Even though little input has been received as to how the jury would operate we have already discussed it more than they did. It's puzzling to think that they actually got that far into without it even occurring to any of them that they would need some sort of plan for analyzing the data. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We're facing an equal amount of raw data to be digested in phase 3. There are fewer questions, but we will get longer, multiple part answers and we may even get more total responses based on the straw poll participation. Plus, very few of the RFA review respondents actually answered more than 10 of the questions, and yet they all walked away from months of effort. That graveyard of responses should give us serious pause. Yes, we've at least talked about the problem, but I don't see names for the jury or a set of procedures for them to follow. The vast deployment of PC will have a bigger impact on Wikipedia than a new RfA process. It is highly likely that whatever the jury might decide, the decision will end up getting dragged to ArbCom. I'm not threatening to do so, but we would be foolish to not consider the possibility. The best way I can see of avoiding that fate is a structured, consensus based discussion. The reason that phase 1 failed is that it was just random discussion. Even our horrible, broken RfA process is better than that today. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Signpost

Not to hurry everyone or anything, but I noticed this week's signpost and filled in a questionnaire. I've no problem with redoing when the questions are agreed upon, but if things aren't ready - perhaps removing the link from the signpost would be a good idea? Worm^TT · (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed it for now [6] (why didn't you?). Possibly, we could add some explanation there, I don't know - but it seemed best to just remove it, ASAP, so others don't waste time filling in questions which may well change. Chzz ► 10:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, mostly because I was still reading through this page for the first time and wasn't certain that the questionnaire wasn't going ahead, and partially because I'd never editted the signpost and wasn't sure of the etiquette. Either way, thanks for sorting it out. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, no problem. I'm glad you spotted it. Chzz ► 11:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, when was it decided that the questionnaire isn't going ahead? When I logged off yesterday we seemed to be on the cusp of a compromise. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not state that the questionnaire was not going ahead. It is a simple fact that, right now, the questionnaire is not active on the RfC page. Therefore, I removed the link on the signpost article which said it was. That is all. Chzz ► 16:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Geez you guys move fast. I'm having a heck of a time keeping up with how quickly things like the questionnaire are proposed, put up, debated, taken down, and abandoned. Where's the fire? Cliff (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Poll

this caused more problems than it was ever going to solve, my bad.

I hate polls. Hate them. But it seems clear there are some user intent on delaying or preventing phase three from going forward for any reason they can dream up. Therefore I feel we should have a quick poll (24/48 hours) on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Allow questionnaire

The questionnaire has been re-worded to address concerns brought up here and should be allowed to move forward.

users who support this position

Beeblebrox (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

not sure where is this questionaire? Cliff (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC) found it. Cliff (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Allow questionnaire, but not yet

The questionnaire is good in principle, but is not yet ready to be released.

users who support this position

Worm^TT · (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Disallow questionnaire

The questionnaire is a flawed process and it will not be possible to determine any consensus for the results, phase three should be something else.

users who support this position

—UncleDouggie (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how the responses will get us any closer than we are. I think that we're trying to do too much at once. There's just one question we need to answer right now, it seems, and that is question #1 on the questionnaire. There are three choices. Everybody pick one and let's move on. There's clearly going to be no 'consensus' view on a 10 question survey where each question has multiple parts. Cliff (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider polling inappropriate

users who support this position

Consider this a bad faith poll

The notion that the only reason for objecting to the phase 3 questionnaire is that users are "intent on delaying or preventing phase three from going forward for any reason they can dream up" goes against the presumption of good faith and makes it impossible to reach a consensus. A reality check doesn't imply obstructionism. There is no precedent on Wikipedia for getting a final consensus from hundreds of independent questionnaires on such a complex topic.

users who support this position

—UncleDouggie (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Poll - Keep or reject

Users who are fed up of this circular navel gazing and think we know enough about the tool already to initiate a community wide Poll to sort this out one way or the other, as in - Keep or reject

users who support this position

- Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
there should be three options though. keep, discontinue use for now, reject outright. Cliff (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
up or down - the "sideways option" would keep this going until the next century IMHO. Collect (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, obviously this isn't working

You people are driving me nuts. I have endeavored to compromise in the questionnaire wording and for the most part everyone seemed satisfied with the new phrasing. Now we are being held up by the desire to remove PC during the RFC by conducting a sub-RFC on that point at the same time. That seems redundant and silly to me but we can do that too. So what is the holdup? We seem to be delaying for the sake of delaying right now. Can we just post Chzz's green box thing and the questionnaire and get on with it or what? If there is yet another issue that someone wants a compromise on then they need to bring it forward. I've endeavored in good faith to address the concerns raised. I believe they have all been addressed. I created the poll out of frustration, yes. As I said at the top I don't like them either but I'm unclear as to why we are waiting and what we are expecting to happen. So, fine, screw the poll and just answer that. What are we waiting for? Are we expecting it to arrive soon? Will phase three be permitted to proceed? I can't see what the holdup is. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Go for it Beeblebrox, post it, your efforts are actually the best yet towards an informative survey. I have already made up my mind as other vocal users have here but that should not restrict the community from having their chance to input their feelings and experiences. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, your last attempt to "move forward" resulted in an edit war because everybody disagreed. This was because you were too rash, and moved on to the next phase without taking any consideration for what other users wanted to see happen next. Just take some time, we need a breather anyway, and let things here reach a conclusion which will not involve edit warring or more disagreement than needed. Stop rushing things forward, as that will not necessarily actually end up with us moving forward (as evidenced by the edit war last time you did that). Also, please calm down, try and communicate your ideas in a more civil way, and stop accusing editors who think that we should take a different approach of purposely trying to obstruct progress. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is extremely frustrating to be asked to wait without knowing what it is we are waiting for. This has been on hold for two days and in those two days I believe we actually reached something of an understanding of each other's positions here and a compromise has been made. I don't believe we would have another edit war as the concerns that led to that unfortunate series of events seem to have been addressed. I believe we heard more than enough from everyone here on this talk page, including myself, and it is time to put this in the community's hands. I don't see any remaining impediments to doing that but in the interest of not being seen as "rushing into it" again I am asking what it is we are waiting for. I think it's a fair question. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading all this, I'm having unpleasant flashbacks to the CDA debate. Anyway, my suggestion would be to recognize that it becomes skull-explodingly impossible to address every imaginable concern in a single poll/RfC/whatever. I think it's, well, recoverable if people who want to just go ahead and pursue the kinds of information gathering that they want. So if someone wants to set up, for example, an accept-reject poll, they should take responsibility for setting it up. As best I can tell, the primary discussion here is about the "phase three" process that Beeblebrox has been developing. Some editors have asked to make what they feel would be fixes in the wording of that. Those issues should be discussed, no hurry, and then phase three should go forward. Anything else can be discussed elsewhere, and linked from here, and can go forward too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the questions, and the questionnaire (heck, I've already answered it) - The only thing I was under the impression we should be waiting for before issuing the questionnaire is a level of "what to do with the data". I'd like a general idea of what we count as a result, and what we can't - otherwise we're just going to get the data, interpret it differently and end up debating until phase 4. If we have an answer to "what are the possible outcomes, and in what circumstances would they fall", I'd be happy to involve the large community. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The proposed method of evaluation, which I have been trying to get users to discuss with me to no avail, was to select a sort of "jury" of trusted users and have them evaluate the results and publish a statement of what they determine those results to be. If the results include a decision to keep PC they would also supply a rough guide to it's usage based on commonalities from the answers to the questionnaires and the results of the "endorsement" phase. This rough guide would be developed over time in the normal manner of such things into a full-fledged policy. I've asked two or three times for advice or ideas on how to select the users for the jury and have gotten no feedback. I asked the crats if they would be interested in doing it. The short answer appears to be no. Once implemented it was my intention to let phase three run for a month in order to solicit the widest possible input, so there's still plenty of time to figure this out. And before anyone asks me how it was decided that it would be a month that is yet another issue I have brought up here only to receive no reply. I have been and continue to be open to discussion of exactly how this would work. I sincerely hope that at the very least an actionable consensus develops around Q1, otherwise we will indeed have failed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, no one on this page would be eligible for the jury. If the crats won't do it, I'm not sure just who we're going to find to wade through that mountain of data. All those who care enough about PC are already involved. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I honestly don't know how to go about it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, "which I have been trying to get users to discuss with me to no avail"? good grief. "To no avail"? possibly, if people do not agree. You suggested a questionnaire, and many users rose objections. (objectionist? because they do not agree to your ideas?) When you couldn't force it through, you shopped over to AN and ANI. That didn't do much good. And here, re. your "stage 3", people objected. So, you ran a poll, which - surprise surprise - did not work. Meanwhile, I've made a simple, clear proposal - asking for agreement through consensus. Sure, it is going OK; we're not certain of consensus yet, but it looks promising. I'll give it at least a day, for people to comment. So far, nobody really objects - and that includes you. If people object, that's fine - we can talk. That's what consensus is all about. It's only a suggestion. When you resort to a poll (the idea of which you dislike), then surely it is time to reconsider? and when you then say "screw the poll and just answer that. What are we waiting for?" - surely you have to question the basis. What are we waiting for? We're waiting for consensus. You have, throughout, implemented RfC edits (such as 'phase 2') in spite of objections; I appreciate your efforts to push things along however you are dismissing objections as 'obstructionist'; you are not listening. I have made a simple, concrete suggestion (re remove PC for now). If it has consensus, great. If it doesn't, no problem. You Beeblebrox, have made a suggestion re. questionnaire - which many people have objected to, as shown above. Please, listen to the objections. Do not try to get a 'vote' in support; do not impose the 'Plan 3" or whatever you have in mind; instead, consider the consensus.

So - regardless of any other ideas - does anyone have any serious objection to proposing removal of PC for now, using that 'green box' above? If not, maybe we can make a little progress here. Chzz ► 22:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Given how this discussion is going, I see no reason why Beeblebrox cannot pursue the phase three, and Chzz cannot also pursue the green box, simultaneously. They are not mutually exclusive. And, even though there would be redundance, that would be preferable to continuing the stalemate here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that, "phase 3" has no consensus - or anything approaching it. For my own proposal? well, it appears to be heading toward consensus, but there's no deadline. No rush. If nobody objects too much, then I will post the 'green box' on the RfC page in a day or so. If people object, then we'll talk about it. Chzz ► 23:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the issue of "removal pending further proceedings" makes things more complicated here. So I say, go ahead with a motion to ask that. I've no objection to also running the questionnaire (considered as a non-binding opinion survey) provided that Q1 is out, because we cannot separate the question of whether we should use PC and of how we plan to use it. The only way to properly handle the main question is by proposing specific policy proposals and submit them to the community (successively, until one gets consensus), so I also suggest that we start thinking about a first policy proposal (with the insight given by this RFC and later the questionnaire). Cenarium (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I see this similar like Tryptofish and Cenarium. Get the green box live and trying to create a proposal for a policy for the case the community wants PC. (although I hope that it gets doomed). mabdul 23:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox> It's not that it "isn't working"; it's just that it's working too slowly for your liking. I still don't see what the rush is. In any case, I support Chzz's green box and I'd be inclined to support proceeding with Phase 3 in a day or so (to give more editors an opportunity to review the wording) if you'd kindly address my point about Question 6. Rivertorch (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Torch,wasn't ignoring you, as you mentioned earlier this page has gotten extremely long. ~~Rather than spending an hour looking for your question about Q6 would you mind repeating it here?~~ Or I could just look in the section titled "question six." Replied there. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Raw data from phase two

Did some further analysis, nothing fancy, of phase two at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Analysis. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

moved from that page, please don't use it as a talk page, thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)*Just as had been suspected, there is a total absence of consensus. The method of proceeding by poll has in this case not brought us nearer to a resolution. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I never expected phase two to be the end of this thing. The main idea was to find areas of common ground. As the idea for phase three began to take shape the results from phase two helped inform that process. This was never going to be an easy task no matter how it was formatted, and open discussion clearly failed to achieve any result at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, here's what conclusions I think we can draw from what we have so far:

The interface needs improvement, many users still find it cumbersome or confusing
A decision on if and how it is to be used is something the community wants sooner rather than later
Althugh many users like the tool despite it's drawbacks, it's not important that Jimbo likes it, or at least not any more important than anyone else liking or disliking it
We definitely need clear standards for what qualifies a user to be a reviewer and what is expected of those who have the user right
Combatting BLP problems, whether they be in biographies or biographical content in other articles, is an important application of PC and should probably be the area where it is used the most
PC is not a perfect solution, but neither is semi protection or anything else we have come up with

It's not much but it's a start. Did I miss anything? If anyone more mathematically/coding inclined wants to add graphs or tables or anything please go right ahead. I'm no ace in either of those areas and have added only the most basic type of information in a simple format. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Eye candy posted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Analysis. —UncleDouggie (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I rather think the number of editors making "multiple votes" (or conversely, those making "bullet votes") is of interest. That is, some may have !voted for every positive (or negative) view, and thus are given an apparent overweight in the totals. At this point, I have seen no accusations that any reviewers acted in any improper manner on any articles, or acted in any manner which would attract liability concerns, meaning that as long as people are willing to do the task, let them. Those who do not wish to do the task - simply decline to act as reviewers. If anyone has examples where reviewers acted improperly, please post them so we can examine them. Collect (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I acted improperly, but it was only because the reviewing interface was so awful that it literally did the exact opposite of what I thought it should be doing. There were numerous other such reports and most reviewers that experienced such pain just gave up. We would never be able to separate all the failed good faith reviews from any real bad faith ones. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-deployment

Is the idea to run the new RFC thing and the questionnaire at the same time, or isn't it? Is there any reason we need wait for the debate over the wording of that section to be resolved before re-deploying phase three? Are there any lingering objections to the wording of the questions that need to be addressed? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is it would be a bad idea to run the questionnaire at the same time. Not only is it hard to judge if we even want to do that at all, but the whole point of "Chzz's green box" (as it seems to be known as ;-D) is to get the issue behind us, so we can debate further with the air slightly cleared, by running the questionnaire at the same time, you defeat that point. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I was under he impression w had a general agreement to let the modified questionnaire proceed and we were just waiting for the green box to be ready. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Kingpin. Furthermore, we shouldn't start phase 3 without a guarantee that it won't meet the same fate as it's mother, RFA review. I posted a longer comment about this much further up the page. Just search for "graveyard". I realize that there is an effort to relaunch RFA review, but we don't know if that will succeed and even if it does, I don't think using a process that took 3 years is such a hot idea. —UncleDouggie (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to admit that I haven't been following discussion of the questionnaire as closely as that of the green box. But I think there are objections to it in principal, and the green box isn't what we're waiting on, imo. However, I feel my other concern (of needing to clear the air first) is a more relevant point to the question of running these at the same time. You asked if that was the idea, my understanding is that the answer is "no, we do not want to run these side by side." This is because of the clearing the air concern, the possibility of making things too cluttered and confusing if we ask people to take part in both processes at the same time, and the additional difficulty of trying to organise them both at the same time (this talk page is getting increasingly unwieldy, but I feel that currently we are making good progress on the green box, and for the moment would like to keep the focus on that). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for the questionnaire. And I oppose it. I think it will cause more problems than it will solve; I have many specific concerns (which I have already expressed on this page), and I am concerned that there is no clear method for evaluating it. If we plan to get a 'jury', and have them figure it out, then plans for that should be made before it is begun - IMHO. Chzz ► 16:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus that the questionnaire should not be allowed to go forward. In fact there are numerous users in the above discussions that have spoken in support of it. I have modified the phrasing of the questions to be more accommodating to your concerns but it's obvious you will oppose it no matter what. Your sideshow RFC does not address the core issues we came here to try and resolve. In fact it specifically states it is not intended to determine the future of pending changes and therefore doesn't even belong here at all. This is ridiculous. The real reason this process exists at all is being pushed aside so that we can spend weeks discussing what state PC should be in while we have the discussion. This is what I mean when I say you are being obstructionist. I have compromised on the wording of several of the questions, I have sat here and waited while we delayed for your green box. I have not opposed the idea that PC be temporarily removed and suggested that both ideas go forward. And still you categorically oppose it. It's not quite what I wanted and it's not quite what you wanted. That's how compromises work. The timeframe for the questionnaire is a full month, more than enough time to finalize the jury process. Show me the consensus that we not do the questionnaire at all. Where is is reflected? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should definitely move forward with the questionnaire, but not until after the poll about removing PC temporarily is done. Getting a clear consensus about interim removal before anything else occurs is pretty much the whole point of having the poll at all. We can use the time during the poll to further refine the questionnaire and (more importantly) recruit a strong jury of some uninvolved people to analyze the results of this all. Steven Walling at work 19:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am definitely interested in discussing that. I'm not sure how the selection process would work, maybe others have some ideas to bring forward on that point. I should think we need at least 10 people due to the high volume of responses anticipated. It's vital that every single response be read and least considered, even though we are bound to get some cranks or jokes thrown in as well. We don;t want anyone to be able to say their voice was not heard or we'll just wind up back here again. As I've said I'd be willing to act as a sort of clerk to insure that all responses are evaluated by at least one member of the jury, and I can assist in whatever other capacity is necessary although of course I'm way too involved to be part of the actual jury. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And just a pointer that in light of the sub-RFC on the immediate use of PC I have re-opened discussion on the phrasing of Q1 in the section on it way up the page. (We may want to archive some of this for manageability, the page is now extremely long). Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I get very confused when someone speaks by referring to things "We need to do". I don,t know if it is your POV, or if you are speaking for a group; If so who are they? And where can I find authority granted to you, to speak on their behalf? Town,WP (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll nominate myself for reading responses to the questionnaire. I know that none of you know me, but I feel that I've also got less invested in this whole thing and am mostly watching and participating out of curiosity rather than any strong feelings one way or the other. I feel like I can be impartial, I guess that's what I'm trying to say. Cliff (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Town: "We" meaning those who are working on this RFC. There are certain common interests that I believe all of us share, such as insuring that all replies to any phase of this RFC are given our attention and consideration. So "we" includes you and anyone else interested in helping here. @Cliff: Thanks for putting yourself forward. Sounds good to me. I'm not sure if we will have some formal process or just look for volunteers and take the first 10-12 who step forward, but having one volunteer is a start. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Duration of the removal proposal

We're getting a good number of responses on the removal proposal, which has only been open for 2 days so far. How long do we want to let it run for? I think that something around 10 to 14 days should be sufficient to give everyone a chance and let the discussions reach as much of a conclusion as they're going to. Once whatever time period we agree on has passed, how should we close it? I favor posting at WP:BN to request an uninvolved bureaucrat to perform the close, since accurately judging consensus will be critical here. We could also approach a specific bureaucrat, but only if we can all agree on someone. We may need a backup plan if all active bureaucrats get involved in the discussion. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree ten days up to 14 is fine. I would like to see the start date and stop date shown. (sooner is better) My76Strat (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a week to ten days at the most. Judging by previous attempt to get some crat interest here they really aren't looking for any new jobs to do, but approaching one specific crat or uninvolved admin seems like a workable plan. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with a week. We're already seeing a big drop off in activity on the page. The crats weren't interested in digesting all the questionnaires, but this is more like an RfA closing, so it might still be possible. Do you have any specific crats in mind? —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin should be sufficient, I think a request at AN should do. Cenarium (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, so at the end of 14 days, I'd be happy to make the ask for an uninvolved crat or admin to close, if anyone thinks it would be useful or lend weight to the request... Steven Walling at work 22:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How about just a general call at both WP:AN and WP:BN? Or we could try to draft a specific individual if anyone has any thoughts on who that might be. Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to have participated here and is certainly among the more thoughtful and straightforward admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a high opinion of Newyorkbrad, but shouldn't we hold as many arbitrators as possible in abeyance, just in case (heaven forbid) this all goes south? There must be at least a few active mop-wielders who have expressed no opinion on PC to date. Rivertorch (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Brad has indicated he is willing to work on it. [7] When I sat down and thought about it his was the name that came to mind as someone who would be well suited to a task like this, but if anyone has other suggestions by all means put forward a name and ask them if they would be interested. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Go for broke proposal for a final phase

Yesterday I took the advice I have often given to others to switch off the computer and take a long walk. As I wandered up and down the beach a thought came to me. While there was previously good support for the questionnaire the users who were supporting it don't seem to be participating much here and that support has slipped away. The idea of having numerous policy proposals go up against each other is likely to lead us to a no-consensus result. If we take these two options off the table what are we left with? We already had a trial period, a temporary policy, an open discussion for several weeks, and the endorsement of specific positions. So, why not just go for broke with a final phase? View my new proposal for such a phase in my sandbox. As you can see it would be restricted to prevent a free-for-all policy battle between numerous proposals, but it leaves the door open to rejecting the draft policy and trying again. The draft policy was formulated by combining the temporary policy we had during the trial with points raised in phase two. Perfect? No. Good enough to get us moving in a forward direction and can always be fixed later? Yes. So, this isn't what I wanted to do and it's not quite what others have proposed but I think it is workable and will result in some sort of consensus. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I read your draft proposal. I think it is the right direction. I am concerned that having three positions will promote arriving at no consensus. I think the final proposal needs to boil down to two positions. 1.)Keep and improve (or) 2.)discard completely. The policy is also a necessary consideration. the draft policy has good points covered but there are a few more concerns that should be enunciated. One example is duration. Currently there is no end game for PC once it is in place. It should, like other forms, be instituted for a specific amount of time, to include indefinite, and there should be clear consideration to remove it when properly requested upon clue. If you develop this a little further, I think we might see the instrument that can bring this trial to a close. My76Strat (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I knew I must've forgot something, added a section on the time frame as indicated by the results from phase 2. I wanted to ask a straight yes/no question since day one but there have been persistent objections to that idea so I made sure to include a "middle road" in this case. The results of the first two phases suggest that we should get an actionable result by presenting these choices. If pos. 2&3 have significantly more support than pos. 1, or pos. 1 has more support than 2&3 combined then we will in fact have an answer to "the big question™." There is still a risk of a deadlock but even if we limit it to a yes/no question that could still be the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, why not? Looking at phase two, that a final decision needs to be made soon is one of the few things the community agrees on. I think 3 answers is sensible, otherwise anyone who disagrees with the proposal but isn't against PC altogether will be put in an impossible position. If possible, could you clarify in the proposal whether reviewers are liable if they accept problematic edits, as this was a major concern in phase 2? Plus maybe include a link to a straightforward explanation of how PC works, for those who haven't been following the discussion closely but will inevitably turn up anyway?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the expressed need to arrive to a final decision soon was mostly motivated by the fact that PC was enabled. Now that it'll no longer be, we should rather ensure that a coherent process is put forward and taking our time is good, especially that doing this too soon may have the effect to have users becoming tired of all this. Cenarium (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you want to go for the big one now then the proposal is good. I think having three options is fine and that if there is no consensus we should default to option 3.

The only issue I have is that there are a number of possible reasons given for applying pending changes. If this is to be the case I think the software needs to be modified so that it clearly displays the protection rationale on the review page. I would argue that the devs would add that if we committed to PC and asked nicely, but there is still the issue of how long will it take and what do we do in the meantime.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(@gnomes) I thought of including something abut liability. It was certainly a concern in phase 2, but it is really a question for the Foundation lawyers as opposed to the community. We can't decide who is legally responsible for what, Florida law does that. (Why did Jimmy have to pick the F-state?) I'll tack the background material on at the top, thanks for suggesting that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Has anyone got in touch with the foundation to ask about the liability issue?

For your proposal, how long will the !vote last for, and who will determine concensus at the end? Obviously we'd better decide that before sticking it out there.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For the closing I suggest same as what we are doing for the current phase. Find a trusted user who has not been overly vocal about PC one way or the other and coax them into it. As to the time frame... not so sure. We want a resolution but we also want to make sure we get the broadest possible sampling. Three weeks? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What if the proposal advances with option 1 and 2, with a condition that if neither of the two emerge with consensus we default to three. My76Strat (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

How can the liability be higher than that already existing for editors and admins, and especially OTRS volunteers? As far as I can tell, the only requirement is that Wikipedia as an entity remove material expeditiously upon complaint - not that it must be any more a "fact checker" than any other entity on the Internet. In other words, the "liability issue" is rather a non-starter unless we assume we are currently liable for failing to revert "bad edits" the instant we see them - regardless of the "pending changes" tool. This accords with discussion on UT:Jimbo . Collect (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the sandbox draft, and what stood out to me is how the second option is still a work in progress, and the discussion here seems to back that perception up. Also, there really needs to be some software development, in addition to policy planning, before PC can be adopted for good, in my opinion. Perhaps the thing to do is to provide two options, the present 1 and 3, with an agreement up front that 3 is the default in the case of no clear consensus. The questionnaire/multiple proposal approach might, instead, be a way to develop a thoughtful version of what is in the green box for option 2, and I would rather see that done carefully and thoughtfully, instead of rushed. Assuming the community does not come out overwhelmingly for a permanent shutdown, and every poll/survey to date suggests that will not happen, then we could end up with option 3 in the short term, leading to a better version of option 2 in the longer term. It seems to me that this is actually what the consensus is for, emerging from the current phase of the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand all this talk about rushing. This RFC has been ongoing for about 45 days already, and the community told us in phase two that they want a decision. The policy is a work in progress in the same way that every policy we have here is. If op.2 were to gain consensus support it would be the policy as soon as the RFC was closed. I was only trying to point out that supporting this policy now doesn't mean we can't change it later if and when problems become apparent. Policies are changed when we find through use that there are flaws. If we aren't using pc we won't find those flaws. The current phase of the discussion is about what to do right now, not the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take my use of the word "rushing" as a criticism, because it wasn't intended that way. It's simply that I don't see option 2 as being adequately well thought-out, and I don't believe that it will be for quite some time. It isn't a fully thought-out policy, nor does it address the concerns about software: page loading time and all that. I think the current phase is actually reaching consensus for your option 3, already. Maybe the most productive thing to do next will be, instead, to work on a thoughtful PC policy, after PC is temporarily removed from articles as the result of the present poll, and to bring that thoughtful policy to the community when it is ready. It isn't ready now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a binary choice: Either you support use in the following manner (naturally, to be improved over time, like any other policy or guideline), or you don't support use in the following manner (including "at all"). However, I'm willing to accept the three-prong choice here.

Also, may I suggest that we take a hint from the California proposition elections format, and have a named person (or couple of persons) who strongly support one of the positions write a brief 'why you should support option #X' statement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A problem that I see (and am not doing a very good job of explaining!) with that binary choice is that it will cause a lot of editors who feel as I do, that I cannot support it in its present form, but would like to see it improved, to decide that we have to !vote with those who want it shut down for good. Please remember, if that happens, the developers will not bring it back later. There is already a binary choice here, and it's running about two-to-one in favor of removing it from articles for now, and fixing it up before bringing it back to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I'm in a Catch-22 here. When I pushed for asking for a yes/no answer before there were protests that I was presenting a false choice when a third option was available. I have integrated that thinking into this new proposal and now there are protests that it's not clear enough to get a good result. I can't get a break here. When I started this whole process the primary aim was to answer the yes/no question. Although the current phase does nothing at all toward that end I would very much like to return to that task when the issue of what to do right this minute has been put to rest. (btw that should be this weekend or early next week) I don't think electing to keep pc but leave it limbo while we wait for some perfect policy that satisfies every conceivable concern to manifest itself is wise, but that option is inherently built into this proposal. The core issue there is that we learn what is wrong with policies by use, not by abstract hypothetical discussion. If we're not using the tool there really isn't any factual basis for designing improvements to either the policy or the tool itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

While the proposal has a few more details than previous efforts, it doesn't really break much new ground on the core issues. My prediction is that there will be consensus to not select option 1, but there won't be consensus between options 2 and 3. So we'll waste a bunch more time and find ourselves right back here. We won't have anything productive to show at all because there won't be any comments received from the process. If we first discuss the individual issues and conduct a few policy experiments, as I outlined in a previous section, we would be more likely to have a draft proposal that could achieve consensus. —UncleDouggie (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I would consider that a successful result. Getting an up or down answer on if we are going to retain the tool has always been the primary objective of this process. I'd certainly like to get at least a temporary policy out of it as well, but after 45 days of discussion I would settle for just a simple yes or no. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just go count the number of support !votes on the current proposal in which the comment says that they want to abandon pending changes entirely. There is a lot of good information in those comments, but not enough to draft a full consensus policy. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If I thought we could get away with that I'd be all for it. I rather suspect we'd be dragged before the ArbCom rather quickly if we tried it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I understand your frustration. A lot of people have a lot of different positions on what should happen next. You are coming up with some ideas but whatever you say, someone has a reason to disagree with it.

When so many people have so many contradictory views, something has to give. To my mind, the first thing that should give is the idea that we can resolve this quickly. That way we can take our time to try to evaluate all the other thoughts.

One thing that we could do is a #Reviewing experiment. It would take a month or so to organise but should help us to work out our differences.

Yaris678 (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A few people don't like my idea, so we have to go with the idea you like? I don't agree, I see ~~very little~~ actually no support for that rather wacky idea. Couple that with he fact that we have already been delivered a mandate to resolve this. Any plan that does not address resolving the main issues goes against the clear consensus established by phase two. I don't see how the experiment idea would move us forward, so it;'s not really an option. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

While the reviewing experiment only has the support of two of us so far, it also only has one oppose, which is you. Although, I must admit to not understanding the rationale for your oppose. Establishing clear reviewing guidelines is clearly a mandate for us. I just proposed a way to test the soundness and improve upon whatever we come up with. It's not a universal cure-all.—UncleDouggie (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There should only be a binary choice: "Do you approve the adoption of this proposal ?" Yes/No. Experience has proved time and time again that when there are multiple options, it's incredibly difficult to determine consensus, and the idea of reporting votes to another option if another fails has been heavily contested in the past polls, it's not feasible. If there's no consensus for adoption, then we can modify the proposal to address concerns and try again. We can hold discussions on various points before the submission of the proposal to the larger community, and resolve the differences by compromise. But please, we should not dissipate our efforts. The proposal should be worked out in project space, the basis for it exists already at WP:PC, so I suggest we move along there, and also to WP:RG, the role of reviewers is to be considered as part of the proposal (though the adoption of the proposal shouldn't imply adoption of the reviewing guideline). Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll start working there, please incorporate your suggestions there. I think we should strive to be inclusive (of additions, even if it can be contradictory at first) at the beginning, then progressively narrow down the proposal through discussion and compromise. Cenarium (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

O'right, seeing we may have lost the tempo here, I'll propose a motion. Cenarium (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)