Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 1

Meta comments
I'm seeing a handful of people insisting that pending changes must be turned off while a decision is being made. This reminds me of a comic strip about Linux distro wars: 'First, you have to do it my way. Then we can have a discussion...' WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Very reminiscent.  My 76 Strat  23:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Only thing is, we're almost 9 months into a two month trial. That's why there's calls to at the least remove PC from all articles first - at present the only reason it's still running is because of dungeon master's fiat. — Jeremy  ( v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.! ) 07:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * and a significant consensus of editors in favor of keeping it (albeit seeking to improve it over time). Collect (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no demonstrated consensus for pending changes. Even if you say that the polls demonstrate consensus, the polls were actually only for keeping PC on for a limited time, that time is now up. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to recite tha last figures including all who supported some version of ongoing PC v. those who opposed all versions of PC? I think the actual count speaks for itself. Collect (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm slightly confused, when you say "all who supported some version of ongoing PC", do you mean "all who supported some version of PC until December 31, 2010 (two months ago)". Or are you referencing some vote I am unaware of? - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See 407 (or 409) to 217.  For some odd reason, I thought that meant a substantial majority favoured PC. YMMV. Collect (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I thought that poll had been discarded by pretty much everybody. I'm really not willing to get into another big debate about what the result in that poll meant, you can read my thoughts on it at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-13/News and notes - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes - you asserted I'm not saying we should ignore what you claim is a majority, I'm simply saying that you shouldn't ignore what appears to be the minority, just on the basis that it's a minority.   Which rather suggest that, at the time, you recognized that opposition to PC was, indeed, a minority position.   I do consider that the claim that "anyone who only stated support for one of the pro-PC positions is therefore automatically opposed to all the other pro-PC positions." (paraphrasing your apparent argument) does not make sense.  Collect (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly Collect I don't want to discuss this all over again. So I'll just point out what I feel to be the relevant parts of my comments on the page I linked to above. Regarding your quote, please note the phrases "what you claim" and "what appears to be". While you say my claim doesn't make sense, as I noted on that page, it makes more sense then presuming that anyone who supports one implementation of PC supports any implementation. To make it slightly more clear why it makes more sense: the way that poll was counted meant that some users supported one option, specifically said they did not support the other options, but were still counted up as supporting the other options. That is a gross misrepresentation of the way those users feel, it's basically lying about how they voted. I, on the other hand, actually took the time to read through every single support vote, and look to see if they had specified which specific options they supported/opposed. Yes, if they did not specifically support an option, I included them as being opposed to that option. This was partly to show how badly designed the poll was, rather than to demonstrate any kind of consensus which had been reached through the poll. I find it vaguely amusing that so many users (such as yourself) said it wasn't fair of me to count those users as being opposed to the other options, but don't seem to mind counting them as supporting the other options (even when they explicitly say they don't support the other options). In summary, that poll was flawed, it would be best to simply let it go, and not try to reach any conclusion on consensus from it. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there is one thing which can be concluded: A large majority think "pending changes" should be done in some form or another. I still like my 'automobile self-starter analogy" - the current "pending changes" maybe flawed, but that was true of the self-starter as well. The principle is that it will be improved on -- which can not take place if we do not allow anyone to use the 'self-starters" in the first place. Experience will, I trust, lead us to better improvements than continued discussion without using a tool we have now. Collect (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny, because right now we are doing it "your" way. The two month trial was over months ago. Protonk (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the practicalities of this issue for the moment, consider the effect of failing to follow up on commitments when another trial on anything is proposed. Many more words and assurances will have to be stated and more time spent to rebuild confidence that agreements are indeed meaningful. "Say what we do and do what we say" is an important principle to help ensure an organization can work effectively. isaacl (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a bad procedural precedent. But AFAICT, the only people who are demanding that it be turned off "just to keep the promise" are the people who very much want it to be turned off permanently.
 * The opponents already know that there is no consensus to get rid of it permanently, so I believe that they're trying to use procedural complaints to get it turned off "temporarily". I predict that if it were turned off "just to keep the promise", then we would see an endless supply of further procedural complaints to prevent it ever being turned on again.
 * I realize that it's difficult to admit defeat, but the anti-PC side has already lost: a clear majority of the community wants to keep and use this tool (in some form or another). Their energy would be better applied towards regulating it to death.  Pounding on the table about "broken promises" is just a waste of time.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're pretty much saying the anti-PC crowd, in attempting to point out that the consensual trial has twice been clearly violated, is disrupting the debate to prove a point? If that's disruption to prove a point, I don't wanna see what disruption for the sake of disruption is. — Jeremy  ( v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.! ) 10:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the picture described here does not at all describe what I have been saying on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It has never been demonstrated that a clear majority want "to keep and use this tool". It's been demonstrated that a clear majority wanted (twice) to use this tool for a certain period of time, and then turn it off. Both times what the clear majority wanted was not done. And saying we shouldn't "temporarily" turn it off for fear of it never being turned back on again is hypocritical, since you're fine with temporarily turning it on and then purposely keeping it on permanently, and we aren't asking that it be "temporarily" turned off anyway; we're asking that it be indefinitely turned off until there is actually a consensus to have it on. That's how Wikipedia works, you need consensus to implement something new, you don't need consensus to not implement something new, turning it off would be not implementing a new feature, keeping it on is implementing a new feature. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree completely with WAID. There is consensus to us this tool. There is no consensus to turn it of. We should really get back to improving Wikipedia. If we could even agree on a voting procedure which is fair / ethical maybe we could move forwards but one side keeps calling for twice too three times the say of the other. Not the way things work. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there was consensus for a two-month trial, and then an extension of that trial to the end of 2010. Never was there consensus for a full and complete rollout. Anyone who says there was is willfully misinterpreting both the initial consensus and the vote that started the second, 5-month phase of the trial. — Jeremy  ( v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.! ) 02:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The first time I heard of what PC was and what it was for I thought 'seems like a good middle area between semi-protect and full-protect'. So no, the assertions against the 'anti-PC crowd' is rather baseless. I still think it's a good idea on certain very sensitive articles. The problem is how some pro-PC users (mostly antivandals) seem rabid on wide-scale implementation even when it is technically still in trial. Wasn't the whole point of the trial to get a clearer view on the impact and to formulate actual guidelines on usage? (Like say, exactly how do we determine which users are ideal for reviewer status and which aren't? How do we report a reviewer who abuses his position? How do we ensure it's all fair? How do we explain it to new users? etc. So yeah, where are they? Rather than arguing on keep/delete and statistics, the editors/programmers who want to keep PC should instead be proposing guidelines and scope by now for discussion by now rather than just slamming a fist on the table, glaring at everyone else, and growling Keep, just cuz!.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  19:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Stalemate?
I think that both this talk page, and the main page, have pretty much reached a stalemate, with editors just repeating their own settled opinions at one another, and becoming increasingly exasperated with one another. What should we do? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, this RfC is not - and in some ways never was - helping. I think it's about time we closed it, and discussed better ways of preceding. I have a few ideas of my own, but at this stage nothing would come of them, everybody's attitudes are much too confrontational at the moment. My only suggestions at this time would be for a more collaborative, accessible approach. This RfC is providing neither of these, and so I think it's run its course. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes please.The results of the trial (doesn't matter if it stays in place for now), recommendations, and plans of future coverage and implementation of the dev team would be a nice starting point. -- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  23:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I will expand a bit further on some of my ideas. I think it's vital that we take this slowly, step by step. These "yes or no" poll proposals are not going to work, simply because there are too many elements in play here. I think it would be interesting to split this into very specific topics (e.g. "If PC is implemented, should it never be used on any articles other than BLPs"), and then allow users to vote on which topics they would like to see discussed. This would give us a good idea of what users actually consider important, and would allow us to take things at a sensible pace, discussing each aspect individually, and only discussing those which users actually feel is relevant. If other users are willing to try this idea out, I'm happy to take a shot at setting up a page where topics can be proposed and voted on, and eventually discussed. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Before that though, I'd rather really hear the experiences of the reviewers first (I wasn't even active yet when PC was first polled). As mentioned in the main page, things like number of vandalisms stopped, good faith edits that didn't get through, edit wars with other reviewers if there are some, what articles were placed under PC and on what criteria, problems encountered if any. Stuff like that. After that, proposals should then be made (probably by the dev team) and then discussion on the merits of the individual components. Then another round at the toolshed and finally implementation that might actually have the weight of consensus behind it.--  Obsidi ♠ n Soul  00:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

quick assessment
So far there are 96 commenters in the discussion - 24 of them have stated they want the tool switched off. Around just over half of these users have stated they don't want the tool at all, leaving around 10 users that have commented stated they want the tool turned off and then they will also want to continue discussing. Is this a good reason to switch the tool off? Perhaps it is, even though a small minority, they are vocal and the trial was supposed to end at least that will put an end to those specific objections and then we can get a clearer comment as regards keep or reject, instead of the added unclarity of some users saying turn off and discuss. Perhaps a compromise would be, to remove the tool from all but ten articles (as this will stop any issues the tech guys have with switching on and off and imo there is no need at all to remove all the user rights until the community has clearly rejected the tool which as yet they absolutely have not) and have a couple of more weeks discussion and then a Keep or reject poll. After that if the tool is kept and anyone want to suggest a new trial for perhaps specific directed expansion or whatever they can RFC and poll again. Off2riorob (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, 96 users have edited the page (although a few are not actually commenting). Your stats are useless unless you also show how many of them support PC (because otherwise, you are yet again simply assuming people support it). Also, interestingly, 43 of the users on this page voted in the previous poll, and 26 of them voted to close then, and only 17 to keep. Yes, I do think it would be a good idea to stop using PC while we discuss it, and don't see the point of just keeping it on 10 pages, why not just remove it from all pages? I think you misunderstand what the issue is with the devs having to switch it on and off, it would not be an issue if we remove it from all articles; it would be an issue if we turn it off properly, so it's not even possible to use it any more (I'm happy to help with any bot-coding for this). - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was very careful in my assessment of users comments so as as not to attribute a position to them unless it was imo absolutely clear. Users that support the tool clearly and have voiced that in the discussion are also 24, the others are unclear, and such as one user who just corrected a typo and two foundation members and a couple of comedy comments etc. As such my assessment was not to do a keep or reject position but to assess the number of users that are commenting in regards to the trial has ended so switch off the tool. To give a percentage of commenter that are insisting on that and the reasons they want it, as you say some of those users just dislike the tool and also have repeatedly polled against it. It would be interesting to cross reference the 26 names you have that polled to close in the last poll against the 24 users in my list that are commenting to close in this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-start with different structure?
I got this ball rolling because this issue has got to be settled. It has to. The one thing all sides seem to agree on is that we need to end the "trial." Where we disagree is clearer as well, so some purpose has been served here already. I believe what we have already can be used to construct a re-start RFC which would be structured more like a user conduct RFC. The main viewpoints can be written up, and users could add individual "views" if their outlook does not fit within the any of the other views already expressed. User can then endorse as many viewpoints as they find they agree with, leaving brief comments as they do so. Threaded discussion will be confined to the talk page. This is kind of a hybrid approach and I have seen it work at user RFCs. I've seen it fail too, but I think it has got to be a better option than the mess we have now. I'm willing to put in the needed work to get it up and running, although if anyone wants to write up any one of the views expressed here as a position to be endorsed they are more than welcome to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not object, and I would gladly participate under a more defined structure. Good luck in defining it however.  My 76 Strat  04:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If we need to remove PC from all articles is currently on in order to get people to agree to move forward personally I'm ok with that. I can't say I like it but if that's what has to be done let's just do it. We can always put it back if that is the decision reached, and the fact that it is still on has become a rather large distraction from the real issues. Further delay is in nobody's best interest, let's push on and settle this matter, we can always work out any lingering details after the big decision is made. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again I agree. Whatever support has been lost to a procedural is not worth the loss. For my part I wouldn't stop supporting PC as a net positive simply because the tool had been turned off during the consensus phase. On the other hand many have expressed the simple fact the tool has been left on as a main reason for oppose. My 76 Strat  04:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If something is working well you shouldn't turn it off. I don't understand why a wikipedian supports the use of Wikipedia as a vandalism noticeboard. But we can use it on 10,000 low profile BLPs only and learn on the job. Pending changes are needed. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it would be a valid compromise to reduced the amount of articles under PC protection by half. The removed half can satisfy those who need to know what happens with the tool removed while the remaining half can satisfy their interests in retaining the benefits of the system in place?  My 76 Strat  04:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that disagreement over what should have happened already is impeding forward progress. If we temporarily take it off all articles it is currently on that should satisfy that concern and allow us to focus conversation on the larger issue of if this project should have pending changes at all. If it is decided to keep it we can put it back and if it is decided not to keep it then we're done. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed. I think vandalism on Wikipedia is evil. I don't assume good faith if someone proposes to turn off PC, turning off PC is complicity with vandalism. Filibusting is vandalism. PC is being filibuster since August 2009. People interested on constructive editing (rollbackers and the ones never blocked) should decide on the anti-vandalism politics of Wikipedia. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A dozen people now ask PC to be turned off. I don't have a good feeling. 80% of 259 users asked for PC in August 2009. Reviewers and Rollbackers should vote if PC helps them fighting vandalism. Too much filibusting/harassment here. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is true, and I already stated I would not object, When valid opposition presents itself however, if compromise is available perhaps it should be pursued. No subsequent action can rectify the procedural discrepancies from the past. That these discrepancies exist is a fact. Whether mistakes of the past should impede progress is its own issue. So while I am willing to turn the tool of and discuss, I am also willing to leaving it on absent some clear consensus to turn it off. Lastly, but not least, I am willing to compromise.  My 76 Strat  05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes. There are a lot of issues here, but the primary sticking point seems to be the Gilligan's Island nature of the Pending Changes trial. (I'm dating myself here, I realize.) We signed up for a three-hour tour several-month test and look what happened. But there was no storm, no ship's wheel spinning out of control, just a crew that either deliberately or thoughtlessly—certainly not accidentally—steered us toward the strange place we now find ourselves in. And on this ship (as on the Island) there's no distinction between crew and passengers; we're all in this together. A sizable contingent, myself included, are making what seems to us to be a reasonable request: better late than never, turn PC off as was agreed upon, and then we'll work on finding consensus vis-à-vis future implementation. That way, the spirit of the consensus for the trial period is honored. Any other way, it looks very much like the goal posts have been moved. Fwiw, while I oppose PC in general, I am quite willing to cheerfully live with it if it's implemented in an open, aboveboard way that respects consensus. Failing to shut down a test run as agreed, with no compelling reason given, doesn't meet that standard. Rivertorch (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you propose that we endorse (lets not call it a vote) specific positions, and at the end, we score the endorcements for the various positions and implement that? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that he did not mean "score" in the sense of "vote" so much as using the various levels of support as a starting point for a more structured discussion, resulting (hopefully) in consensus. If that is what is being proposed then I think it could work. Revcasy (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It still wouldn't be a poll. The idea is that by using this somewhat more restricted methodology we avoid the sort of free-for-all we are seeing now. Many users may endorse multiple views, or may find that none of them represent them accurately and they can add their own. Allowing only brief one-sentence comments in endorsements will make it easier to determine a consensus. Open dialogue can continue as normal on the talk page, but only the RFC itself will be used to gauge consensus. This should also invite wider participation as users can simply add their endorsements without having to read extremely lengthy conversations if that is what they prefer to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a very good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to do this as early as tomorrow if there are not significant objections to it. I'm thinking that everything we have now will be collapsed but still available, the other option being closing this page and starting a entirely new one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would much prefer it's archived rather than hidden - perhaps a cut and paste archive procedure. It's a big old page already, and too much useful stuff gets hidden by collapsing these days. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - What about moving all the content on this RFC page to this talk page and starting clean and fresh on the page we have now with all the discussion that has occurred already in the RFC still available for continued discussion on this talkpage, the only issue would be clearly knowing that no one objects. I am thinking only to keep the focus on a single page. Although the focas may shift to the new RFC format there is still active discussion on the current page and it would be a shame to archive active threads.Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are both better ideas, thanks for pitching them. Archiving might be our best bet, that way we will have a clean slate but we can easily link directly to what has gone before. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No consensus defaults to...
When there is no consensus (and we're looking at about 65% pro and the rest contra judging from the outcomes of the last two polls so it is close to no consensus) it all boils down what should we default to for pending changes. We have two options:


 * 1) Keep PC on (in trial form or whatever it ought to be). Or
 * 2) Shut it down.
 * 1) Shut it down.

For me, I prefer the second option because it seems plain and simple and it represents the status quo; that is, the state of affairs in which we dealt with problems on Wikipedia before the introduction of PC. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  00:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Jimbo has already ordained that it is turned on. So, I think we better talk about HOW it is going to be implemented, not whether it will be implemented. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, imo there is going to be a Keep or Reject poll in the near future and User:TeleComNasSprVen will get his opportunity to reject soon enough. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we please stop pushing for polls again? Polls were what got us into this mess in the first place. Jimbo has no more authority than any of you. Though his advice is respected of course, his word is not law. Why don't you all start listening to the concerns for once so we still might have a chance of actually implementing a version of PC that everyone can be happy with? Making people think that the only choices are keep and delete is deliberately misleading.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  17:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think there are more than those two basic options I would respectfully disagree, also we are not in any mess at all, stop shouting. Also give over with the attacking edit summaries like this recent one - "stop the frakking childishness already" - Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL I'm not trying to hide it if that's what you're getting at. I'm really not into the act-like-we're-all-at-a-polite-dinner-party-while-I-bait-someone-into-losing-their-cool kind of diplomacy, sorry. The concerns on PC are valid. Ignoring them and pretending we're not all actually in a mess over this is childish. An argument that has stretched for almost a year and has actually made it into mainstream news is not a mess? A keep majority the third time around would only mean another extension of the trial. It hasn't led to anything in the past two polls, why exactly do you think it'll make a difference now? I mean, cripes, there is a rather prominent appeal at the top of the RfC not to poll, yet you have attempted it twice in the parent page already and once here. Even after apparently agreeing to Beeblebrox's proposal, you still think there are only two options with no gray area. *shrugs*-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  20:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please avoid reference to childishness and such like even if you think that is honest - it is still considered to be close to a personal attack. I might think you are a primary school user but it is better if I keep my opinions to myself, as it is for you to do also. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)