Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions petition/Archive 2

Opposed
Some reasons why I, personally, am against this so called "petition" (aimed at whom exactly?), are due to the fact that I don't think it: A) Allows suitable discussion or consideration; the petition is conducted in the manner of one coming to the page, and simply signing their signature, some have made comments, and there is a small discussion, however, the basic layout of the page is fundamentally flawed as it doesn't allow for a fair representation of both sides of the argument: (ie, it doesn't allow those who think we should just let the guys who developed these things get on a do it in peace to represent that view in the same manner that it allows those who "demand" that flagged revs be implemented have their opinion represented), but more importantly it doesn't allow for consensus to be implemented, an opinion poll is no substitute for discussion. B) Accommodates for a fair representation of all sides of the argument;''' because the page is formatted like a petition, it doesn't allow for any development of consensus, the basic idea it to see how many people support one particular idea, however, it doesn't allow for those who oppose that idea to make their voices heard, but more importantly it does it allow for the development of any kind of consensus, because its a simple matter of signing your signature, there is no discussion, thus, there is no consensus. C) Considers the difficulties in development, what do you really achieve by trying to petition the people who are developing this? I suspect that this stunt was mostly put forward as a means of letting people display their support for flagged revisions (again), rather than considering the difficulties involved in the working in the development of flagged revisions, the guys who you are "demanding" that they roll out flagged revisions are not purposely holding it back, and they do not have some grudge against the en.wikipedia with is preventing them from introducing the flagged revisions. Treat it like a vaccine, if you take it too early into the development, you're likely to get serious side-effects. I'm not really interested in arguing the various pros and cons of flagged revisions, as that's an "old chestnut" (nice Christmas pun, huh?), I'm just trying to show why I don't approve of this page. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 06:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. This is NOT an argument, and it is NOT a discussion. It is NOT intended to reach consensus. It is aimed (if you read it) clearly at the WMF - NOT the community. It is asking them to enable the technical possibility of Flagged Revisions, so that we can then decide by internal discussion and consensus how and why we should use it. I'm surprised there's any confusion here, it is what it says on the tin. Please understand that a petition is not a poll or a discussion. It is a mechanism for those who want to shout at the WMF to do so.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've taken a poll, made so only one side can vote, and called it a petition. Petitions are not how things are run at wikipedia, we use consensus, I'm surprised there is any confusion in this regard, since it's made very clear throughout the project that we are not a democracy, and we work based on consensus. If you want the developers to work faster may I suggest you help them, instead of "shouting" at them. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 10:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scott, either you don't understand what's going on here or I don't (probably neither of us does). This is what I understand: the internal discussion and consensus has already happened, with the resulting plan written up at WP:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions. The FlaggedRevisions extension as it exists doesn't support all the details of that plan, so the devs are working on a modification of it to enable that plan to happen. If I'm wrong, please correct me. But if I'm right, then either (a) you want to shout at the devs to work faster to make the plan happen (in which case the header at the top of the petition is misleading); or (b) you want to abandon that plan and just have flagged revisions enabled in the form that the existing software permits (in which case you should be consulting the community about the change of strategy, not petitioning WMF). Which is it?--Kotniski (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus they seem to have no idea what it is they're asking for, nor any desire to explain when asked. Still, look at all the distinguished people (including our leader) who are prepared to put their name under a "demand" without apparently knowing or caring what that demand implies. How does this not fill one with confidence about the way Wikpedia is being run these days?--Kotniski (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we do know what we're asking for. It seems that you have no idea how the code would work, or how easy it truly is to implement. Yes there are some issues that need work done, but it's been fucking years, if the foundation had made this a top priority, we wouldn't be here today. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 11:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone claims to know what they're asking for, but few seem willing to say (and those who do say contradict each other). Plus any negative comments get removed immediately from the page, making the whole thing a scandalous whitewash. I give up. If anyone really cares about BLPs, just semi-protect them. (Oh, but that's not nearly complicated enough...) But as usual, I suspect there's a completely different agenda here that we're not being told about. Never mind, in real life the authorities stick petitions straight in the bin on receipt - I guess the same will happen to this one. Plonk.--Kotniski (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Opposed. I would like to see a petition to allow people who believe that flagged revisions is bad for WP to voice their opinion. Crum375 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Shocker all 7 of you will have a page to sign... --Coffee //  have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 15:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Over 200 people oppposed outright doing anything with Flagged Revisions, and that's before we even get to the sticky matter of how a 60% for the doing something option was manufactured in a half-assed poll using support votes made up of mutually exclusive configurations. By contrast, it would not be a hard task to actually list the tiny minority of people who support full implementation of the standard extension, which this daft 'demand' calls for, a point which has not really been understood even by Jimbo it seems. Still, a listing on CENT is bound to bring some more hilarious levels of clarity to the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the same poll? I count 259 for and 61 against, for a support of 80%). -- B figura  (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we are not talking about the same poll. MickMacNee (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and a large number of them thought that either it would be "all or nothing" (i.e., every WP article) and/or completely didn't understand what FR was about, as evidenced by many of the comments (though granted, probably many of the supports were the same). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in fairness, that, and flagging all BLPs, were the most popular configurations at the time of the first 58% poll. The 58% poll wasn't really a poll to turn the extension on. If it was strictly a "turn the tool on, decide the trial later", it'd have much more support (as evident by the FPPR poll). Sceptre (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fears of eventual site wide adoption if voting yes in that poll were more than valid, seeing as nobody bothered to agree the goals or trial arrangements beforehand. One suggestion for a trial even included 'half of Wikipedia'. Given that lack of clarity or direction, and considering the amount of this is not far enough, but its a start type supports, opposes through fears of a breaching experiment being underway were also more than valid. MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I opposed the original poll. Because it gave the implication of wide-scale rollout on all BLPs/all articles, and there was a total lack of clarity with the implementation. However, I wasn't opposed to enabling the extension, hence why I supported FPPR. Sceptre (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the petition?
Don't get me wrong I support Flagged revisions, as it is a sign of maturity both for content and for procedures in this Encyclopedia, but what is the point to have a petition on it?

Which of the following do you suppose is the reason for it:
 * 1) Keeping us informed
 * or, The decision was made, but not in a very democratic way so now it is now trying to gather support and momentum to implement the change, because even though Wikipedia is not a democracy, the leadership is trying to keep us happy, because only happy people stay and keep on working
 * 1) To tell the devs to hurry up. (based on Sceptre's comment, thanks!)

Thanks, Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To tell the devs to hurry up. We approved FPPR eight months ago; in Wikipedia terms, that's 8% of the life of the project. Sceptre (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what some people seem to think it is for, but it wasn't the original reason for it being created. It was originally created just as more of the same uninformed hurry up and do something rabble rousing, with no real point behind it. If I was a dev, I would already be on a go slow by now, given the borderline offensive nature of it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that as if the years they've had to implement this, weren't long enough... --Coffee //  have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that as if your failures at consensus building are my fault. In my opinion, the incidents that kick this sort of pointless yet tedious rabble rousing off are starting to look decidedy too perfect for my taste. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that nobody is trying to find someone to blame. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the petition offensive and I am starting to view the whole flagged revisions movement to have been done in a way that slights the full editorship. All the discussion for flagged revisions has occurred in the Wikipedia proposals areas or even more obscure corners. It was spearheaded by a few highly-motivated individuals. That is perfectly fine, however, once the proposal gained momentum, it should have been turned into some sort of vote or poll put towards the user base at large, many of whom prefer to spend their time editing articles rather than following the bureaucratic stuff. (When you think about it, the influential people in this debate would have had to spend more than a year reading discussions probably for an hour or more a day. How many editors could that possibility represent? Not many, I'm sure.) The entire set of users have opinions on flagged revisions. It'd be nice if they were asked. This is a BIG change to the Wiki model. Everybody deserves a chance to influence the outcome. This requires more heads-up when the discussion is coming to a resolution. I see no reason why the proposal for flagged revisions should not have been boiled down into a one-page summary of the pros and cons followed by a set of choices to vote on a outcome and put in a highly visible spot like with the fund-raising banners. This is something that should have been more of a community decision by Wikipedians than by a Cabal of admins. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that there was a poll as mentioned above, otherwise I perfectly agree with your point of view. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you meant "poll", and there have apparently been several. I think that's actually part of the problem here. Another issue is that this petition is expressly not about Flagged Protection, as was made obvious by the fact that several supporters reverted changes to make it about Flagged Protection, which polling and discussion has at least gained some consensus to using. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 23:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And, more to the point, the last "poll" for FR was a real squeaker. This petition, with "oppose" relegated to the talk page is a nice way of obscuring the opposition to FR while demonstrating the (substantial) support.  I'm not suggesting that the petition was crafted with that in mind, but I have no doubt it will be offered as evidence supporting expansion for FR. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was reverted for two reasons. Firstly, this isn't about what particular way the community chooses to use a feature - that's a policy discussion for elsewhere. Secondly, it is unethical to change a poll once people have signed it. They signed one thing - you can't change that to another. It may be that the original wording is vague, even fatally so, and that different people meant different things by signing - that may make the petition "open to interpretation". But we can't say "the people meant this, or that" all we can say is "there are the words they signed".--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever seen a petition that had a section that allowed you to sign in opposition. Mr.Z-man 23:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever seen a petition on Wikipedia before... — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unusual, yes. But not unique. See for example here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ah, there are two issues with that comparison though: first, the really overwhelming support of the position being expressed there was really unprecedented. There essentially was not opposition, and there certainly were no reversions of comments about opposition. Second, notice all of the discussion that did occur on the front of that page. There is clearly a different dynamic being enforced here, where only supporters are allowed to remain on the front of the page. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 00:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical archive/Petition_for_the return_of_the_Old_Wikipedia, Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions, Petition for a printed form had an oppose section. There have been an infinitesimal small number of petitions on Wikipedia project space. (granted there maybe more petitions in other space) : So "I don't think I've ever seen a petition that had a section that allowed you to sign in opposition" is a non-argument. There is no consensus on having or not having an oppose section in petitions, because petitions are so very rare.
 * 1) Historical archive/Petition_for_the return_of_the_Old_Wikipedia
 * 2) Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions
 * 3) Petition for a printed form
 * 4) Petition for reconsideration of the Wikipedia Forever banner
 * 5) BLP semiprotection petition

Note: 17 user space titles with the word "petition". Ikip (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to real petitions. Just because someone calls a poll a petition doesn't make it one. Also, Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions does not have an oppose section, its a petition in opposition, there is a difference. Mr.Z-man 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a little dizzying. So could I go and make an opposing petition suggesting that developer time is best spent elsewhere, link it from CENT (and AN and the VP) and keep views about its propriety or composition off the project page?  Would that be ok? Protonk (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk, my thoughts exactly. I was going to write something similar (but not as well said), yesterday. Obviously there is some major concerns about this process, technical and otherwise. For a group of editors to demand that something should be done, right now, and then move all dissenting opinions off the main page, just highlights how divisive and controversial this entire process has been.
 * Quote: "I don't think I've ever seen a petition that had a section that allowed you to sign in opposition."
 * I agree, "Just because someone calls a poll a petition doesn't make it one." this is a community discussion, with only supporting editors allowed to comment on the main page.
 * Any person in authority to make changes should note that:
 * This issue is obviously very controversial, and they should continue to proceed with extreme caution,
 * How supporters of this petition endorsed calling other editors contributions "sewers". Is this how the community usually reaches an amicable solution?
 * How supporters of this petition have moved all dissenting comments to the talk page.  Is this how the community usually reaches an amicable solution?
 * Ikip 07:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: Proposals, petitions, etc. are advertised in a number of venues and discussion of the subject-space pages (criticism, praise, suggestions) goes on the discussion (talk) page. I'm not seeing what your argument is here. This is a "list of editors who would like to see something happen." The criticism of the list itself and the idea behind it can go on the talk page or on another project-space page (both of which have happened). --MZMcBride (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My point (somewhat mooted by the fact that someone has gone made an opposing petition!) about ghettoizing opposition should be obvious. Only those supporting FR own the project page, those opposing it get no say in its presentation or composition.  And I have no doubt this list will be used as evidence of some evolving or strong consensus for FR, rather than simply a call for the developers to move more quickly.  This is especially important given the knife edge the last proposal rode (60% approval, passed by the god-king) and the demand from proponents that the community would never wholeheartedly embrace something like FR, so it would have to be done without strong consensus and for our own good.  I want to make sure that we don't have the narrative re-written. Protonk (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh please. So if I decide I want to go change some essay to include my own personal viewpoint, or to rewrite it to be something completely different, I should be free to do so? Of course not, its just common sense. If I disagree with the essay, I argue on the talk page or create my own, with my opinion. I don't hijack it to make it something it wasn't intended to be (e.g. changing a petition into a poll). And I don't see how this is substantially different. We already have a consensus for Flagged Protection, I don't see why anyone would need to use this as evidence of consensus, unless the people who oppose FlaggedRevs are planning on using the delay in deployment to force a new proposal. In response to Ikip, if you're going to quote me, please don't twist my words. I was referring to the "petitions" that had a support/oppose section when I talked about calling a poll a petition. And if you're going to call it a quote, quote it exactly. Mr.Z-man 18:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI: Village pump (proposals) — V = I * R (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What is a petition?
I think the problem with some of the opposition to this petition is that a lot of people don't realize what a petition is for.

Petitions aren't debates. They aren't discussions, or votes. They aren't polls.

Petitions aren't used to show what public opinion is about a subject, and they aren't used to make decisions about what to do.

Petitions are meant to show that people care about something.

Petitions draw attention to a subject. A successful petition (one that draws a certain arbitrary number of supporters) can sometimes lead to a debate, vote, discussion, poll, etc. For example, in local politics in many areas of the United States, a petition with a certain number of signatures may allow an issue to become available on a ballot in an upcoming election, or give a person the opportunity to run for public office. They show that enough people support an idea that it's worth having a debate about. But the petition won't bring about the particular change being advocated, not on its own.

In this case, it is believed that the discussion has already taken place, in polls run in the past. The community supported flagged revisions. This petition serves to show that enough people care about the feature, that priority should be given to implementing it in the English Wikipedia.

That's why there's no "oppose" section. Petitions never include people opposed to an issue, because it's not relevant. If such a discussion is needed it will take place in another venue. That's the case with this petition as well.

I hope this eases some fears that people have that this is some kind of one-sided "vote". --  At am a  頭 02:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would it do that? The community "supported" FR with less support than is expected for even the most marginal RfA candidate.  The proposal was passed by jimbo somewhat controversially.  So I have some concern that we are masking that with a petition illustrating the numbers behind the support without context. Protonk (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We also appoint arbitrators with less support than marginal RFA candidates. And we promote admins with less support than marginal RFB candidates. It didn't meet one particular arbitrary standard used by an almost completely unrelated process, what's your point? Mr.Z-man 04:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that we don't literally use one rubric for decision making, thank you. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, I think that it's a rather backhanded insult to insinuate that anyone who opposes this is ignorant of the meaning of "petition". Shame on you. The activities of some supporters in controlling what this says, primarily by preventing the mention of Flagged Protection, and framing this as a demand, is particularly troubling. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 02:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't insinuate anything, was it really necessary to say "shame on you" to someone trying to clarify things? Frankly, I think the "demand" portion is toothless in any case. --  At am a  頭 03:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "shame on you" is a tad overwrought, but this is linked from VP, AN, and CENT, so I think it's acceptable to air complaints that the petition one sided. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you not seen other petitions or an RFC even? They work in the same manner, with endorsements on the main page, and any other issues on the talk page. This isn't a poll, it's a petition. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 05:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I've never seen an RfC.  Ever. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A petition is canvassing, which should be discouraged on this project, as so, it has no place here but on AFD. Mion (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ah, I found it CanvassingMion (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ... except that this isn't a discussion or a vote, and that guideline doesn't even come close to applying. — Coren (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, its worse, abusing the channels that are in place for invoking discussion (CENT, etc) to draw people to a yes vote, using the signs of the group

, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a ... ,it is an original approach, but what should we think of people who have to discourage canvassing on this project, and a re going to group up themselfs ? use the meta channel, or somthing like that. Mion (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Canvassing doesn't forbid petitions. A couple of arbcom members, four likely incoming arbcom members, and Jimbo Wales have signed this one so far. That speaks well for the willingness of experienced hands to try new ideas on Wikipedia that are reasonably argued, such as Flagged Revisions (and petitions). Priyanath talk 06:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats a common thing with a novel approach (the petition), but looking at the implications, I think its time to open up a community discussion about it as the method splits the current method of mixed discussion in two camps, one discussion page for everybody who say YES and one page for who say NO, sort of voting. And that the method of petition in this case is about Flagged revisions is less relevant. Mion (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer the Wikipedia:Canvassing doesn't forbid petitions. that is wikilawyering, look at the spirit of the letter. Mion (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that any discussion about what a petition is and what a petition is not is not based on any wikipolicy, since there have only been a very small handful of petitions. Ikip (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I try this again : "The spirit of the letter".Mion (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this is neither a discussion to build consensus nor a vote, so WP:CANVASS isn't applicable in letter or spirit as Coren has already stated above. And even if it was, I think we get away with invoking IAR (also policy). Besides, you've already listed the opposite petition on CENT, so this is all a moot point. -- B figura  (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well listing it on cent was more an example of what happends, strange enough it doesn't turn out in YES/NO petitions but YES/YES petitions, and the question is not, we get away with it, the question is, is this a method that contributes positive to the project. Mion (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mion, I'm sorry, my message was addressed to Atama, not you, sorry for the confusion. Ikip 08:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop this and have a proper poll instead
Sorry to keep coming back here, but having seen a few recent diffs and reverts I'm becoming quite convinced that there are two agendas here: firstly (the one intended by the proposers of the petition) to get flagged revisions turned on across the board; and secondly (the one apparently understood by most of the people who signed the petition) to persuade the foundation/devs to hurry up with implementing the agreed limited arrangement. It does make a rather huge difference which of these things we mean; if we are to change the decision that was arrived at before, we must ensure that people know without a doubt what it is they are voting for. This is clearly not the case here. So maybe we could start again, with a poll with (at least) three options (full FR, limited FR as agreed in the last consensus, no FR) and see what we get. This petition as it stands is meaningless and (with the censorship that's been going on) sets a very bad precedent for decision-making on WP.--Kotniski (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said repeatedly, this petition has nothing to do with decision making and is not a poll. Poll elsewhere to your heart's content.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How can it have nothing to do with decision making? It's an attempt to persuade WMF to make some kind of decision, surely? The only thing that isn't clear (including to the people who signed the petition, apparently) is: what decision?--Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It says right at the top of the petition that it's to enable the extension. The implications of that enabling aren't entirely clear. A brief summary of previous decisions would help. One issue from opposers seem to be the nature of the trial is vague (some ideas here - Flagged revisions/Trial/Proposed trials). More clarity on what happens after enabling, and how the trial will be evaluated, would help. Also, if the evaluation is inconclusive, is it default-to-keep-FR, or default-to-previous(non-FR)?Rd232 talk 11:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kotniski, there is a sizable effort to "get the word out" which is possibly questionable. Maybe a counter petition Kotniski with both petitions being mentioned on the main page? Ikip 13:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a counter petition (or two). But I think petitions are the wrong way to go here. We make decisions on WP by reasoned discussion, not by shouting slogans and tricking people into signing something that they think means something else (or maybe they don't, and there really is now consensus for what the petition organizers want here - but from this list of names under a vague statement, we really have no idea what people actually want here). --Kotniski (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree on starting over from scratch. The fact this hinges on a vote from 8 months ago is extremely weak, at best. Start over... preferably with a small-scale area to work on that can be specifically written up in detail for all to see that covers all aspects like user rights, scope of trial, expectations, etc. Wallowing in voting/discussions that started a year ago isn't (or at least shouldn't) be used for snap decision implementations. Plowing something through on short notice and its timing, etc, everything, this is rubbish and just a glorified copy-paste of a lot of the support section from the last vote. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

BLPs smell like sewers?
?? Ikip 13:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While most of their subjects likely shower on a regular basis, the biographies of living persons themselves smell horribly. Have you ever stood next to one? @harej 21:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Read Tabloid, and compare to Encyclopedia. Then go to the BLP Noticeboard and see whether the BLPs there smell like the former or the latter. Priyanath talk 06:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as we're assigning reading, try Sampling bias, then go on to Moral panic and perhaps even Culture of fear. Protonk (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Argumentum ad Jimbonem


RE: We.. leave them all alone until Wikimania [ended August 28, 2009]. I'd say we should even give them a few weeks after that if there is some glitch. And then we start raising hell (but gently, respectfully) if it's not rolled out 4 weeks past Wikimania. I've been pushing for this and waiting for this for years now, I suppose a few more weeks won't kill us. :-) Ikip 13:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No Ikip, this is not really AaJ tbh, rather misuse of Jimbo, or MoJ. In the actual (partial) quote being used at the top of this demand, Jimbo was actually referring to the deadline for implementation of the code changes necessary for the FPPR trial. This would have been obvious had a link to the whole discussion been provided, where he is replying to a query from Rootology, where he said "...Apparently some additional coding work needs to be done to facilitate the activation of the approved Flagged Revisions process..." (which is FPPR). (whole discussion here). The fact that its incorrect usage here has maybe misled him, and definitely misled many others, into signing a petition that has less than nothing to do with FPPR (it asks for the standard meta FR extension to be turned on NOW!!!1, which as far as advancing FPPR on en.wiki would not affect a damn thing until these changes are made), is just one of the many hilarities of it. Certain observers really should give some thought as to how much of the ensuing fun and resistance to clarification is down to ignorance of the state of play generally, and how much has been deliberate. MickMacNee (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this to be open ended or what?
Is this to be the kind of call for action petition where it is symbolically handed over to A. Recipient after a set time period or target number of signatories is reached. Or is it to be the open ended protest kind, where it just languishes on the bar, getting dog-eared and beer-stained, until time and tide overtake it? MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've included it in MediaWiki/DeveloperMemo/December2009. Rd232 talk 20:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We can let it run a week or two and then post it to Mike Godwin. It has only been a couple of days so far.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please kindly link him to this relevant discussion page when you do. Happy Christmas, SpitfireTally-ho! 22:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure he knows how the tab works.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And that's a reason not to link because...? Please, don't argue this just for the sake of it. Its not difficult for you to link him, it's diplomatic to do so, and its misrepresentative not to. Based on your argument I could say you shouldn't bother to post him the petition as he no doubt knows how the search bar works, which is of course a completely ridiculous argument....
 * Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A misrepresentation of what? There are scores of discussion on this topic, many with far more participation. Why link to this particular one? I'll certainly link to Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions for comparison. I can accept it would be mean not to do that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

there is only one way to find out
which is to test it. Personally, I think the community will end up using it in a very limited fashion, but how can we be sure of things in advance. There are some things the deWP does better than we do, that we are not likely to emulate, and we shouldn't assume  their experience will carry over. I am in fact somewhat concerned it will be applied too rapidly and without adequate discussion of the features before and after the trials. I say trials, because unless it proves hopeless or wonderful, we're going to need several successive stages, even of BLPs. We have too many important BLP articles to be reckless about them--and it it discourages proper updates & correction of errors, that's just as harmful as permitting improper ones.  DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been working on a possibility at User:Scott MacDonald/Limited Flagging, which might interest you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Statistics on editing habits of editors when flagged revisions are put in place
I notice that Mediawiki.org has also instituted flagged revisions.

I am interested to know if there has been any statistics on editing habits of other sites when flagged revisions have been put in place. Have the edits remained the same, dropped, or gone up? Ikip 07:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The german wikipedia is probably a much better example. Mediawiki is an odd duck, it's mainly a documentation space for the software.  I don't imagine their contribution dynamics will look anything like ours (though they may by accident). Protonk (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think normal procedure would be to first put statistical tools in place, let that run for a year to filter seasonal anomalies out, and then activate FR to see what the difference is. Mion (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Trouble is we want to capture more data than that. Running edit filters in log only mode works well because we are interested in how often the filter trips edits, which edits can be judged "good/bad" and how expensive the filter itself is computationally.  With FR we are interested in how article editing is impacted, whether new/unregistered editors leave, choose different subjects, or otherwise work around being unable to see their change on the page immediately.  We also want to see how large backlog of checking revisions becomes and what the distribution of that backlog ends up looking like.  Most of these require that some form of FR be live. Protonk (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the problem arises that by introducing a new set of statistical tools in the extension and switching on FR as well as test, there is no identical set (the same article set) to compare to, taking other articles for it doesn't help, I think the statistics have to run first to show the required edit behavior as a baseline, after running FR the difference gets clear. Mion (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. I think there is a significant interaction between stats which are available only from running FR and stats which become available through the extension (meaning that the length of time revisions are backlogged may impact willingness to add new revisions, etc.). Protonk (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the German wikipedia is the best example. Because of the cultural differences that express themselves in different ways. For example, I understand that the German site has no non-free images, and other restrictions that a group of editors here are pushing for, but are not widely accepted.

Playing devils advocate about my own question, no matter what the statics show, I think a certain group of editors will continue to support Flagged revisions as necessary. Since 2006 there has been a drop in edits, and there is still a lot of arguments about why it happened. Ikip 01:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any real agreement on why edits have plateaued (probably a more accurate term). But I don't think we need to be rushing toward measures which explicitly raise barriers to contribution.  Organizations have a funny habit of accepting high risk, high growth strategies early in their development, but once they appear "stable" or "grounded" they retreat to safer, more conservative goals.  Wikipedia is no exception.  We undertook a pretty grand experiment and (arguably) succeed.  Now the desire is to curtail that experiment, because we've arrived.  If/when a more lithe competitor (or a host of them) overtakes us, this push for retrenchement is going to look pretty foolish.
 * As to your comment that a certain fraction of editors will support (or oppose, for that matter) FR, that's probably true. And I'll admit that we won't be able stop FR from being rolled out.  Its only a matter of time. Protonk (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk wrote: "Organizations have a funny habit of accepting high risk, high growth strategies early in their development, but once they appear "stable" or "grounded" they retreat to safer, more conservative goals. Wikipedia is no exception." Excellent point, well said. I learned about this phenomena, particularly about religions, in my sociology class 101. Protonk wrote: "If/when a more lithe competitor (or a host of them) overtakes us, this push for retrenchement is going to look pretty foolish." The barriers to entry is the problem, of course.  But I welcome that day. Heartily agree with the rest ;) Ikip  11:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lobbying
It seems that Petition/Canvassing and lobbying on OTRS workshops go hand in hand here:
 * There is an aggressive Lobbying going on in the chapters which are supposed to represent the community on OTRS meetings, for example de last Dutch OTRS meeting where the German Wikipedia produced air on Flagged Revisions instead of proper statistics over the last 12 months. Mion (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dutch OTRS Workshop - 13:30 : Flagged Revions, with Lyzzy from the German Wikipedia. To be clear, the dutch wikipedia has a different patrol system which works fine, FR has been discussed on the NL-Wikipedia and didn't find much support.Mion (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there more methods we should know about ? Mion (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Another embarrassing BLP gaffe that could have been prevented by Flagged Revisions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/17/alexander-chancellor-wikipedia Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One idiot's edit is the reason to undermine basic principles of EnWiki? Sounds funny. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 02:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Targeted Flagging - a new policy proposal
Just an idea, but this is something we could do now.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Opposition petition Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions
An opposition petition has been created, it was added, deleted, then restored by another editor, then deleted again on this main project page. Ikip 01:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems only fair to link to that page in a reasonably visible place. I am not sure why editors insist on removing it.  ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  10:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to enlighten the community on this?
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * News to me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still missing what was actually happening... There seems to be no proof, and I don't think there's much we can do about an off wiki site. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 08:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point there is nothing we need do - Peripitus (Talk) 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you a member of this [Secret mailing list] Peripitus? Casliber states:
 * "In October while I was told about this website as a place where concerned editors were discussing what to do about BLPs, and that the board was private and pseudonyms were being used, and that there were a number of people using it (24?)."
 * "Nothing to see here, move on" although a typical normal reaction to rule breaking for veteran editors, is really troubling. Peripitus, would you dismiss such allegations if those allegations were against those opposed to flagged revisions?
 * As a former arbcom member wrote:
 * "[Secret mailing list]s "certainly [are] not consistent with the public principles of the site. But in reality, it's standard practice."
 * Outlawing secret mailing list only helps veteran editors. I think we should stop outlawing secret mailing lists because there is no way to outlaw them, I think we should embrace them as "standard practice" and stop pretending they don't exist. When editors are no longer afraid to transparently e-mail someone or start an off wiki chatboard, then the balance of power will still favor the veteran editors, but newer editors will no longer have to be afraid or be bullied about canvassing/meat puppetry by the same veteran editors who hypocritically time and time again, have been shown to have their own secret mailing lists.
 * Ikip 12:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The site that Casliber mentions is: (link removed ) Ikip 12:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does this site now link to a crude picture, is this some kind of joke Casliber? Ikip 12:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone, erm, made the address to a redirect to a naughty page a short time after I posted the link. I had hoped for a more sanguine response and open discussion from those who were/are frustrated with the BLP issue and who were involved in the site but never mind, it's gone now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 99% of me thought so, but I was covering my ass just in case I was the butt of a really crude and completly out of character joke. Ikip 15:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone with contacts on www.leaseweb.com ? (AMS) Mion (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Having fallen foul of a similar redirect in the past I am very much in favour of ass-covering.  pablo hablo. 16:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean, what response did you want? Protonk (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Open discussion - private lists and it is hard not to assume the worst. How do we know there isn't loading of AfD or RfA for instance? The BLP thing has a momentum and I think we're heading to some overhaul of how we treat them, and that folks don't need to resort to more extreme measures. I support the concept of the petition and think it was the right thing to do, I still have a feeling this would be a lot less work for everybody by semi protecting than FR but whatever. Fact is, once I knew of its existence, it has a chilling effect on what I see and who I can trust. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners, saints. As heads is tails, just call me Lucifer, 'cause I'm in need of some restraint. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're still talking about the same thing, I can't imagine you would have gotten a different response on AN/I when pointing out the existence of yet another listserv/forum. Forums like that are something of a safety valve.  When there are obvious issues on wiki that can't be dealt with in a straightforward fashion, people seek other avenues of discussion.  I have some theories as to why we see an offsite forum for BLP problems (or "the BLP problem" generally) as borderline acceptable and an offsite forum to discussion wikipedia's "problem with Russian articles" as actionable, but they are perhaps not germane to this discussion.  Given the way you posed the question (and the immediate inscrutability of the site), what else were people to say in response? Protonk (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I tried to define the "BLP problem" a few months ago, if anyone would like something unexciting to improve. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't even need to be any secret external forums. The perfect storm of BLP acitivists and resident trolls working together to cook up a project over on the Review worked fine to stitch up a recent Afd in all manner of policy ignoring ways, both procedural and content wise. Funnily enough, that's also where the impetus and incident for this 'demand' was initiated as well. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

moved from article to talk
Support in principle. The creator of this petition apparently isn't in support of the approved Flagged protection and patrolled revisions proposal. I don't agree with "turn on the extension and we'll fumble our way to a consensus through months of all-out edit wars" (which is what his stance boils down to, IMO) but it's well past time to implement the trial configuration as approved by the community. - BanyanTree 08:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As my attempt above to express qualified support has been removed from the petition as a "comment", I have turned Flagged protection and patrolled revisions petition from a redirect to this page to a separate petition, as it appears clear that the creators of this petition do not see the two as equivalent. Editors are free to support that petition in addition or in substitution for this FlaggedRevs petition. Thanks, BanyanTree 10:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. The decision about how to use FR, is a community decision not one for the WMF. If FRRP has community consensus when the feature is turned on, that's what will happen. The point of this petition is to unite all who want some form of FR (whatever form they prefer) to prod the WMF. It isn't a discussion on community policy - which is why discussion was removed to the talk page. It is a pity you've felt the need to start a narrower-based petition, but that's your right.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have offered clarification in response to your post at Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions petition. Please centralize discussion there. Thanks, BanyanTree 11:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You should centralise that discussion here, because this petition is the source of all the confusion, and this talk page is the place where bizarrely, Mike Godwin is apparently supposed to come to figure out what the hell all the signatories meant by signing it, and whether he can do anything for the angry masses or not. Still, it should be an interesting discussion between him and Jimbo once they figure out how Jimbo's quote at the top of the petition has less than nothing to do with the actual demand of the petition. I half think Mike might not even pick up on the obfuscation in its execution, and subsequent confusion in signatories comments, at all, and that was probably the aim all along. This petition was never meant to be anything more than another tedious bit of ill-informed rabble rousing, which ultimately acheives nothing. Except of course, publicity for a brand spanking new FR proposal written coincidentally by the petition's initiator, but is not actually compatibale with the FPPR proposal at all, which many people including Jimbo it seems thought that this petition was actually calling for the hurrying up of (ignoring the fact that even if the Foundation acted on this petition's 'demand', it would not affect the already ongoing FPPR trial timetable one iota). MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

On a related note...
"Fact and friction", by Richard Walters of the Financial Times, is an interesting read. APK whisper in my ear  20:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Poll or petition? Bullshit if not public!
Why not post a notice at the main page asking the editors to voice their opinion about FR? When 200 out of many others try to roll the boulder it's not serious and it is not consensus. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 02:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't ABOUT wanting it or not, it's about turning it on now. It's already been decided that consensus is weighted towards FR in limited form. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you even realise that the only proposal that even remotely has consensus cannot even be implemented yet, whether you Turn it On Now, or not? It is waiting for code changes, which no amount of petitioning is going to make go any faster. There's no use pointing to vague support for vague proposals either, the people with the actual power to Switch It On made it clear a while ago that they won't Switch It On without knowing the community has the first clue what they are going to do with it if they did. This is not a spell-checker, this is a massively configurable, massively breakable, interface extension. MickMacNee (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus? Don't make me laugh. Several hundreds of editors can't decide when there are many thousands who are unaware of trial, FR consensus or even of what is FR at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyBon (talk • contribs)
 * Going by THAT definition of consensus, Wikipedia wouldn't exist because nothing would ever be considered as having any consensus. And furthermore, in THIS case there's over 200 in the 'roll it out' petition and a mere 21 in the 'don't' one. You would seriously say that doesn't lean toward the for side? Can't you just accept that a lot more people want this than don't? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you had answered my actual question, then maybe we could take it seriously. As it is, it is just pointless noise. I cannot stress enough how stupid this petition was when the actual quote appropriated from Jimbo to support it, had sod all to do with what the petitioner was talking about in the first place. It's an utter joke. And what's worse, certain people have actively made sure the confusion was perpetuated, rather than clarified. Some consensus that is. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being as smart as you, oh Holy One, Wikipedia Emperor. I bow to your superior knowledge of all things. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If, by just reading the pages at WP:Flagged Revisions, that makes me a Wiki Emperer, then I accept your unconditional worship. MickMacNee (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case EVERY single editor is an interested party. That's why EVERY editor should be invited to discussion of FR. Otherwise this is not a consensus of a very small lobby party. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 19:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can feel it. APK whisper in my ear  18:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)