Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 15 September 2010

Template:Fix bunching

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching

Short and sweet

The consensus was for a two-month trial of PC. After two months, the trial was not stopped, and now it is being indefinitely continued without consensus. Since the last promise of it being a temporary trial was completely ignored by supporters, what reason is there to believe that this promise of it being a temporary trial will be honored? "I'll only put it in a little bit" is not a strategy that should be effective on Misplaced Pages, and I think it is shameful that it was deployed here.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of what we were doing all along, nor what we are doing next. I don't know where we ended up with this strange idea floating around that nothing can change without getting "consensus" (which is undefined, but apparently must be a lot higher than 2/3 support) for anything new.

My view is that we should drive for consensus, that we will get consensus, and that in the meantime we should pursue an iterative process of improvement, as opposed to allowing a minority to block progress.

It is also worth contemplating the level of screaming that I would *quite justifiably* face, were I to say "65% are in favor of this, so I'm asking the Foundation to turn it off".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What on earth did "two month" mean in "two month trial" if it didn't mean "we'll stop in two months and evaluate the results?"—Kww(talk) 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It meant that we would vote after two months to figure out what to do. So that's what we did. And the results are in: the extension is popular, with 65% support, but has some problems which led to 35% opposition. The next step? Revised software from the Foundation, a new trial, and a new vote. Iterating until we get strong enough support to call it stable and keep it permanently.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a two-month trial, and I strongly suspect that you know that. That's an indefinite-length trial with a review at the two-month point. That's a substantially different thing, and I don't think you ever would have gotten consensus for an indefinite-length trial. The terms are being changed after the fact to suit the supporters, and that's immoral.—Kww(talk) 17:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No one's asking to turn the extension off, we just remove it from articles until we have properly reviewed the effects of PC and address to a satisfiable extent the serious problems that came up. That's a compromise supported by people of both 'camp'. Cenarium (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also a compromise opposed by people of both 'camp'. Convince me that it's a good idea? Why should we stop using it in the cases where it is working perfectly well? It's popular and it works! Removing it from articles where it is doing a good job makes no sense to me. What problem are you trying to solve?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't the same as a vote, but generally, the closer of a discussion does evaluate the numbers along with the arguments. Firstly, there was no consensus to a particular keep position, and I know at least some people said they would rather remove it entirely than see it expanded past a certain point. There were nuances in the !votes that don't seem necessarily to have been taken into account. Not everyone supported an expansion, per se.

Regardless, however, I had very much the same idea that Kww did—that a "trial" meant "We'll test it for a couple months, shut it off, and then see if there's strong consensus to enable it permanently." Honestly, if you already consider this "progress", and those who oppose to be "blocking progress", you've taken a side and probably shouldn't be closing the debates—someone who doesn't care much either way should be. Those who opposed considering it are not trying to "block progress", they disagree that it is progress. I think that position has some merit. As you said yourself—it has bugs, even at a small sample size it's created backlogs, it's not fulfilled one of its major promises (namely, to let high-profile articles be reduced to this rather than indefinite semiprotection), and it's opposed by a sizable portion of the community. If I'd known the concept was going to be "We're going to try it and then put continuing it to a majority vote (and count three of the four positions in the debate as one lump toward what constitutes a majority)", I never would've supported the trial. It honestly sounds like you're trying to ramrod this, and whether or not that's true, if it's your intent that it's going in no matter what anyone says, just say that. If it's going to be up to the community, that's fine—but a massive structural change like this should require a higher, not lower, degree of consensus than what it takes to make a single person an admin (or even bureaucrat, for that matter—and that's even higher). It's not like the devs' work will go to waste if we don't use it. Many other Wikimedia wikis, with a different scale than we have, use it and are happy with it. But at this point, the community's response basically amounts to "Maybe if some things are fixed, but at this point no consensus to enable". Seraphimblade 17:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any way to support that interpretation; that's a highly POV rendering of the facts. A position is supported by 65% of the community - I won't defy them and shut this thing off. I think the thing to get busy on now is a more precise specification of what we expect from the Foundation in terms of version 2, what deadline we will have for them to get that out to us, and what precise parameters we will use for the next poll. In my view, following the desires of the *entire* community (rather than the vocal minority trying to block this) will involve acknowledging that there can be consensus to keep, consensus to get rid of it, and a range of options in the middle which tell us "keep working on it". What I recommend at this point is prioritizing for the Foundation just what they need to fix to meet the most important and fixable objections.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What about those whose "keep" !votes were conditional or for one position only, huh? If it doesn't go according to their wishes, are you not defying them? —Jeremy 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Not allowing IP users to create articles was supposed to be a limited time test, too. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, Seraphimblade makes a good point about you closing the discussion. The usual practice is that entirely uninvolved admins close straw polls and RfCs, taking into account the numbers and the arguments. Because you expressed a strong view in favour, and the consensus is so narrow, it doesn't seem like the best idea for you to be closing it. In addition, the poll was inherently problematic because it lumped together as "keep" everyone who wanted PC in any sense at all, even in a very minimal sense, so it's going to be a difficult poll to close fairly. Would you be willing to hand the decision over to someone uninvolved, assuming we can find such a person at this point? SlimVirgin 04:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't close the poll at all! I'm asking as liaison for the Foundation here and working in my traditional role to shepherd this process. I plan to keep doing that. For the next poll, I intend to bless the poll as official only once I am satisfied that the options are clearly explained, and only once I have said exactly what I am going to do based on each possible outcome. It's not pleasant having ambiguity like this. With an unambiguous poll, with clear outcomes specified in advance, we won't have this confusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it is that Jimbo is going to end up pissing off either a significant majority or a significant minority .... opposers have yet to convince him of any of the merits of pissing off the significant majority. Conspicuously, there hasn't been much effort to address the question of what damage is being done on any particular article with PC, when the alternative for that article is semi- or full page protection. BigK HeX (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's where I'd like to move the discussion - to talk about where we should be using it now (during the interim before version 2 comes out), where we shouldn't, and - importantly - why.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible straw poll for the future

RE: "For the next poll, I intend to bless the poll as official only once I am satisfied that the options are clearly explained..."

While having some shortcomings, I do think the previous straw poll did very well at jogging enough discussion to give a strong basis for a more thorough discussion in the future. I think the primary question to be posed to the community in the future is how to proceed, followed by the editor's rationale. A future poll could ask whether editors would like:

1. Pending Changes removed from all Mainspace articles and we return to use of Page Protection permanently
2. Pending Changes removed from all Mainspace articles -- at least temporarily -- and we return to use of Page Protection, for the time being, while leaning towards outright rejection of Pending Changes
3. Continued trial of pending changes leanings towards opposing permanent use of PC
4. Pending Changes removed from all Mainspace articles -- at least temporarily -- and we return to use of Page Protection, for the time being
5. Pending Changes removed from all Mainspace articles -- at least temporarily -- and we return to use of Page Protection, for the time being, while leaning towards acceptance of Pending Changes
6. Continued trial of pending changes leanings towards approving permanent use of PC
7. Pending Changes system accepted permanently, but with conditions .
8. Pending Changes system accepted permanently

It would be noted that varying supports and varying opposes would be grouped for a rough overview of the sense of the community. Just as important as the above decision would be the rationale of the responding editors (of course, per WP:NOTADEMOCRACY).

My review of the previous straw poll discussion found many of the responses fit into one or more of the following rationale, which editors could cite, or they can just type out their own response:

A) People who oppose PC and have no interest in future development of Pending Changes, because Page Protection is a superior tool to fight vandalism

B) People who oppose PC and have no interest in future development of Pending Changes, because of cynicism that the system will be abused and that administrators will apply PC outside of guidelines

C) People who oppose PC at the present, and think the system is currently unusable, but are interested in continuing discussion on improvements

D) People who are undecided, but think use of the system should be stopped for now

E) People who are undecided, but are interested enough to desire that a new poll be offered within 6 months or so, on whether a new Pending Changes trial should be conducted

F) People who are undecided and would support extension of any present trial for a couple of months

G) People who conditionally support PC, but are wary of either the programming for pending changes in its current state or the mission/policies of pending changes, but support very limited and judicious use of Pending Changes on low traffic articles (less than 40k hits or so per month?) that would otherwise be Page Protected.

H) People who conditionally support the use of Pending Changes in lieu of Page Protection on vandalized pages, but only in groups of articles that will be clearly defined in later discussion, and may be, for example, some combination of the following categories: low-traffic BLPs, Featured/Good articles in only the WikiProject Medicine, and/or heavily sockpuppet targeted articles (and perhaps some other small categories). Support is conditional upon Pending Changes being used only where Page Protection would have been applied.

I) People who conditionally support PC and are OK with its use on any article throughout Misplaced Pages, as needed to fight active threats of vandalism, with the firm exception that it should almost *never* be used on high-traffic articles (greater than 150k hits or so per month?) unless there's some compelling community consensus for an individual high-traffic article. Support is conditional upon Pending Changes being used only where Page Protection would have been applied.

J) People who support PC and believe it should be used on vandalized articles as needed, and also would not mind a discussion being held on possible proactive uses of PC fight vandalism on "likely" targets.

This is my understanding from the straw poll discussion. Hope it might help in your efforts towards finding a poll that you can officially stamp. BigK HeX (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting analysis, and it matches my thinking to a large extent. I think all of that is a great deal too complex, though, and the exact wording of the options, and the number of support options versus oppose options, etc., were all called into question this page vote.

Why not simply have two voting options? support and oppose. The goal is to get to 80%+ eventually of either support or oppose. Along the way, the vote results will determine what to do...

<50% - we turn it off and go back to the drawing board as to whether or not PC is what we want to be doing at all anyway

50%-66% - we turn it off temporarily and ask the Foundation to go back to the drawing board

66%-80% - we keep it on but ask for further revisions and a v3 poll

80%+ - we keep it as a stable permanent feature but also welcome improvements over time, as with anything

Isn't that, subject of course to some discussion and modification and specification, more or less reasonable and more or less what we want to do? I think it unwise to ask too many complicated questions, although as with all our !votes, people should give reasons with their vote, as it helps others to think it through, and helps with understanding afterwards.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Any straw poll should have 2 options only, otherwise many of the problems that plagued the first straw poll will recur. Ronk01 talk 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can avoid the problems with the previous poll if we offer options similar to the four possible outcomes listed by Jimbo and then go with the option that gets the median vote. In my preferred version, the options are:

1. Turn off the pending changes feature. Go back to the drawing board as to whether or not PC is what we want to be doing at all anyway.
2. "Soft shutdown". Work on improvements. Poll on new trial. As per Misplaced Pages talk:Pending changes/Straw poll#Alternative phrasing
3. Hold at 2k page maximum while we think about policy and software features. A new poll after some new features have been rolled out.
4. Steady expansion and roll out of new features. A new poll after some new features have been rolled out.

These options are ranked from least to most gung-ho about pending changes. The median vote will be taken as the decider. e.g. if 30% vote 1, 21% vote 2, 15% vote 3 and 34% vote 4 then option 2 will be taken whereas if 30% vote 1, 19% vote 2, 17% vote 3 and 34% vote 4 then option 3 will be taken.

Options 2, 3 and 4 would all require a separate poll with a sizable majority before pending changes could be treated as a permanent feature of the English Misplaced Pages. We could add an option 5 that is the same as 4 but removing the requirement for a future poll. However, I think that would confuse the issue because that option would require way more than 50% approval to be the consensus required for full acceptance and hence the median vote thing goes out the window. I think it is cleaner to have the full acceptance as part of a separate, later poll.

Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the 4 options on your poll seems to be one for permanent acceptance. They all seem to presume more work will be necessary. BigK HeX (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I addressed that issue in the last paragraph, but I guess you didn't get that far. Obviously, you could have an option 5 that is full acceptance, but you would need way more than 50% of people to vote for 5 for it to be sufficient to say that there is consensus to permanently accept the pending changes feature. That complicates how the poll would work but it would still work. I guess we would default to option 4 if 50%-80% of people voted 5. Yaris678 (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that a support/oppose poll would be less complicated and serve the purpose. While not necessary to create "stock" responses, I think it's useful to what's "under the hood" of people's reasoning at this depth. Unfortunately, we've seen that these details can cloud the overriding message of support (or opposition). BigK HeX (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, what needs to be emphasized in the future...

I think the most basic problem with previous discussion on Pending Changes is that people have repeatedly compared PC-protected articles to unprotected articles. In the next discussion, I think it cannot be emphasized enough that PC-protection should be compared to semi-protection and full-protection. My understanding is that PC is being proposed to be used only where Page Protection would be applied, so any future discussion should be worded so as to convey that without PC-protection, a page would receive semi/full-protection. It was very frustrating to have discussions with people who kept declaring that "PC-protection is terrible because it will scare off our friendly IP-editors from making edits" when we all know that semi-protection has that effect (but is even more draconian about it!). BigK HeX (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Option 4 in the straw poll was to roll out pending changes to all BLPs. Some people want to trial it on all good-class medical articles. My own thought is that PC might make sense for border-line cases between semi- and non-protected (with the exception of articles with a very high edit frequency). In all three of those cases, pending changes protection is doing more than just replacing semi-protection. Yaris678 (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that option may have contributed to some of the complications of the recent straw poll. While there may be a different proposal in the future about a more aggressive use of Pending Changes, the current proposal seems to have fairly clear language that Pending Changes be used only as a substitute for semi/full protection. That being the case, it would be hoped that responses on the present proposal would be regarding PC being used in the proposed manner. We might be able to gauge some of the interest for more aggressive use, but that's not the question at the moment, and, I think it's clearly a separate question for a different proposal in the future.

So .... what might be a decent idea for the current proposal, in order to end all of the speculation and cynicism about "potential abuse," it might help simply to mandate that Pending Changes not be enabled on a page, unless the page has already been on semi/full protection for at least 24 hours. BigK HeX (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, but a bit odd in that it requires someone to use a stronger protection than necessary or desirable for 24 hours before moving to the softer protection of PC. That's a good way to alleviate concerns about overuse, but a bit odd and in the long run could lead to pressure to widen the use of semi-protection in order to get to PC. It seems better to me to be upfront and say: likely, PC will replace semi-protection in a very large percentage of the cases (except high-edit-volume pages where it's just a pain in the neck to deal with), and likely, PC will be used in places where semi-protection is "too much" (like obscure BLPs where we want anons to be able to make legit edits).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that my proposal to require semi-prot first is a nonsensical process on its face, but as a compromise measure, it might be a huge step forward to assuaging opposition to PC. My review of the straw poll discussion found a very significant amount of the opposition to PC being based very heavily on the idea that PC will be used proactively on non-vandalized pages or based on cynicism that admins will disregard the proposed guidelines and use PC where they would not apply semi-prot. If nothing else, it would eliminate a large swath of the rationale people have voiced in opposition. BigK HeX (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But you will never win over people like Jéské Couriano who apparently either hate IP's or oppose all forms of protection and want the vandals to take over the Wiki. No offense to anyone intended, but the whole thing frustrates me. Ronk01 talk 21:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is for the legitimate IPs that I oppose Pending Changes, chummer - it forces their edits to go through editors whom more likely than not have a point-of-view they'd rather push on the article, and it does nothging to alleviate the vandalism problem - if anything it will exacerbate it as vandals switch to more subtle vandalism which an unknowledgeable reviewer will then accept, making it more difficult to get rid of. Lose the bad faith. —Jeremy 23:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please AGF. What pending changes does (when used appropriately) is open up Semi-protected pages to IP's, or prevents the application of Semi in the first place. In regards to vandalism, most vandals simply are not intelligent enough (or are not dedicated enough) to resort to subtle vandalsim, and if they do, there are plently of knowledgeable editors/reviewers out there, and at some look up changed facts while reviewing. Finally, PC was not about reducing vandalism, it was about opening up Semi-protected pages to IPs. Think about this: isn't having to have your edits reviewed better than not being able to make them at all? Ronk01 talk 23:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• up Semi-protected pages to IP's, or prevents the application of Semi in the first place. This is a double-edged sword, and you know it. Anything that helps legit IPs also, by definition, helps vandal IPs. The fact that several highly-vandalized pages spent less than 24 hours in the PC-interim between semiprotection bouts is enough evidence to prove this.
• In regards to vandalism, most vandals simply are not intelligent enough (or are not dedicated enough) to resort to subtle vandalsim Wrong. It's child's play to figure out a way to band together with your friends and overload reviewers' workload on an article, or to follow someone's orders as to how to disrupt Misplaced Pages even with PendingChanges on. In addition, most of our subtle vandals are LTA sockpuppeteers, making PC ultimately worthless to deal with vandalism from these sources.
• f they do, there are plently of knowledgeable editors/reviewers out there, and at some look up changed facts while reviewing. This I agree on. The caveat is that most of the knowledgeable reviewers have a POV to push about the topics they are knowledgeable on, or are unlikely to be able to make it there before a reviewer who is a victim of Huggle syndrome.
• Finally, PC was not about reducing vandalism, it was about opening up Semi-protected pages to IPs. Given how it was implemented, this is a baldfaced lie, especially given the psychological issues with the community that make it impossible for me to assume that PC will do anything but damage Misplaced Pages. —Jeremy 00:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, for likely posting this in wrong place, in wrong time. Much criticism against pending changes concerned complexity. Thus suggest:

• No autoreviewers. Every user registered for XX days with YYY edits can review pending changes (ironically, this complies with the term autoreviewer).

• Absolutely not. This essentially gives those unwilling and/or unworthy of the tool the kill-code to the robot. —Jeremy 00:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• No flashy markup, meaning pending changes are not bolded and not painted in orange in the watchlists and recent change lists. They do not pop up on top in personal wachlists 'please review' (annoying). They are examined as regular changes, with no "Review this revision" and "Comment" window at the top (useless, there is already an edit summary, which most editors do not use) - the only difference is "accept" button next to "undo".

My personal displeasure with PC was speed (could it be that users of old wiki interface are slowed more, as PC is written in the new markup?), and my requirement to developers is negligible delay in viewing diffs compared to regular articles - this is a real pain in going after vandals in real time. Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been contributing for a while now and I see that on the English Misplaced Pages many established editors think Pending Changes will let them control admission not only of new content but also of new editors. This is gatekeeping at its worse. New editors will be compliant or they will be rejected. I have run into several editors like this in just the last few days alone, people who come online and apparently the first thing they do is check their huge watchlists and revert as much as they can justify of the hard work that was done in their absence. They treat good faith editors, both anons and registered users, even established, like filth. Sometimes they even have the gall to complain about how much of their time we cause them to waste in this manner. If the new editor responds as most normal people do they get blocked. If the new editor perseveres, quietly editing defensively, the gatekeepers stroke themselves for whatever quality the new editor achieves. This is obscene. If Pending Changes were used only where semi- and full protection is used now, it would be progress. But I don't think that is likely. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

With Jeremy and anon IP 69.3.72.249, we have two prime examples of the cynicism that I've referred to. BigK HeX (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to say that I had no strong feelings one way or the other about PC before coming to the previous straw poll. However, after seeing the way in which that poll was short-circuiting consensus and choking off discussion I felt that I had no choice but to oppose PC in the poll by default. I could not support the idea that such a major change in WP was going to be determined by a poll, and a faulty one at that.

The new proposal for a poll discussed above seems to indicate that once again our course of action will be determined by a vote, rather than by consensus and discussion. This is clearly wrong, and clearly against the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages. I am disappointed to see so many otherwise intelligent and well-intentioned editors (including Jimbo!) suggesting that a vote is the way to determine the future of such a major change.

I admit that gaining consensus is similar to herding cats. I understand that many may be frustrated by the outlook that gaining consensus for PC could drag on for a long time (perhaps indefinitely). But, that is the point of consensus! The collective wisdom of thousands and thousands of contributors over many years, who have established and maintained the principle of consensus, is essentially being abandoned when we abandon the process. That voting might be more convenient or expedient in this particular case is completely beside the point. The merits of PC, or the lack thereof, is completely beside the point. This is not the way we do things here. Revcasy (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you that polls are not the best way to determine consensus (which, by the way is very vague, 66% in some places 80%, even 90%, but never 100%), in this case it was the only way (though it was poorly made) to determine consensus. A full out discussion among 124,000 editors is unimaginable, we cannot apply the same principles that we use on pages to sitewide decisions. In all reality, the results of that poll have all but been thrown out (except as justification to keep it running until the second straw poll) in favor of a second straw poll with yes or no answers, to determine it PC should be kept on until the trial of PC 2.0. I personally have my reservation regarding simple majority votes, but I also believe that PC is a step forward for Misplaced Pages in allowing IPs to edit formerly semi-protected pages. Ronk01 talk 14:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. A simple majority vote is a mistake. I don't think we have to worry about having the participation of 124,000 editors in any discussion (what an accomplishment that would be!). I think the importance of this issue makes it even more important to gain consensus for the change. Furthermore, if we are seriously considering changing the way in which we make decisions such as this, we should be explicit about it. If we are abandoning the principle of consensus, even if only in this case, that should be clear to everyone. Maintaining the illusion and terminology of consensus, when the decision is in fact being made by majority vote, is disingenuous and wrongheaded, not to mention harmful to the project. Revcasy (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While I do appreciate your comments I disagree that this is such an important decision, its a simple tool that has been working and did not make the wheels drop off. The tool is being developed to aid Wikipedias progression as the project develops and grows and old systems and methods of editing and protection become unable to cope or outdated with the foundations goals. There has been mountains of discussion and there will likely be more, the levels of support required to continue attempting to improve tools to help in this continued expansion of the project should not be excessively high and the idea that this issue is a change in the way we reach consensus or that it is in any way harmful to the project as you claim is undue indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How can we make a decision based on a straight vote, while at the same time claiming to be a consensus-based project? At the very least, the importance of any future votes should be made clear to the community so that we have an appropriate level of participation in the poll. Many editors will no doubt not understand the importance of a straw poll that purports to be part of a consensus building discussion, when it is in fact a straight majority vote and an end to discussion. Revcasy (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see the issue, as I have seen nothing ends up as a straight vote round here, discussion along with compromise wins out in the end as it is doing here now. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting interpretation of what happened with the last straw poll. Well, I won't beat a dead horse as I feel that I have said clearly what I intended to say. Again, I respect the intentions and good-faith efforts of all involved parties, even the ones I disagree with. =) Revcasy (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Biographical inquiry

Hello Mr. Wales. I would like to include an account of why you set up the Wikimedia Foundation and stepped aside as its chairman in your biographical article. I wonder if you could take a look at this quote by your successor and indicate if it's accurate enough for us to use responsibly – I was reticent about using it without checking because it wasn't a critical interview and the remarks seemed somewhat off-hand.

The Wikimedia Foundation was hosting Misplaced Pages, collecting funds so that we could run the project and we were working happily as volunteers. And what happened is that Jimmy Wales got very involved at first and then in 2005 or 2006 the project became very well-known, lots of visitors, lots of mentions in the press, many requests for conferences. So, Jimmy Wales didn’t quite have the time anymore to be the chair of Wikimedia Foundation. Then, I proposed myself and that’s how I was elected by the board to be its Chair.

— Florence Devouard, interview

Thanks for your time, Skomorokh 15:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very offhand remark. I don't think it is relevant for a biography of me, in any way shape or form.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's understandable; I wonder are you on record (to your satisfaction) anywhere about these events? Skomorokh 16:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You get what you pay for

You are eventually going to have to switch over to paid Arbs. The current system is idealistic but not feasible in the long run. I realize you probably aren't ready to agree with me on this but when you do come to the same conclusion then pop off an email to me and I'll help you set up a better system. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I've watched a number of cases go through the process including Giano II, ADHD, Piotrus(sp?) and the case that resulted in TS resigning as clerk. The process may be cumbersome but its also effective, and by and large I've agreed with the decisions. The CC case seems to be the exception that proves the rule, and I don't think paychecks would have prevented this exception from occurring. --*Kat* (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong; I've never claimed infallibility (papal or otherwise). However, to make this clear, while volunteers can do adequate jobs for more menial tasks, they are much more likely to have monumental failures since they don't really lose anything if they really fuck things up - some things shouldn't be done by hobbyists. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

While I haven't always felt this way when I was involved in an ArbCom case, in general I think that the the slowness, inefficiencies, and potential capriciousness of the ArbCom help discourage people from seeking their help. If they were reliably fast, efficient, and fair then they'd be overwhelmed with requests.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly a resounding endorsement! ;) TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Misplaced Pages survives since 2001 run by volunteers, with little trouble. If the system had to fuck up, it would have already done since long time. Therefore I see no reason to change the way our community works -you know: if it's not broken, don't fix it. Nor I see why Mr.Wales should mail you for that -do you have any truly outstanding qualifications on open source encyclopedias management? --Cyclopia 02:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should we pay ArbCom when most editors think its a joke? Do you realize how many times on the talk page of the WP:Policies and guidelines (or any major policy or the essay WP:5P) someone (other than me) has to say to another editor "who cares what ArbCom said?" It was an attempt at bureaucracy by those that think regular editors are children and a burden to be controlled through the strict application of "rules" and "laws" and discipline. We have no laws, we dont need a judge or jury. If we should get out of line Jimbo has always been there to gently lead us back to the path, unfortunately some around here dont like the idea of there being someone above them and therefore have made his continued ability to do so much harder. I understand he has voluntarily given up much of his "power", but I think that was a mistake. Scrap ArbCom and allow Jimbo to settle disputes (if he so wishes, it would be alot for one person, understand if he wouldnt want to). He's one of very few in Misplaced Pages I would trust with unlimited authority and accept that they knew better in any ruling that differed with my own. ArbCom I trust not, remind me of the Lord of the Flies. Cant wait for their ruling- Kill Piggy!Camelbinky (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In your rant, you apparently forgot that Jimbo has no problem with ArbCom and, in fact, does communicate with them. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the Romans said the same thing as they grew beyond manageability. My qualifications? Call me Cassandra. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

There is a discussion at ANI regarding the on-wiki posting (since deleted) of an email attributed to you that had presumably been sent in confidence. –xeno 14:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it won't happen again. Count Iblis (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I published the text of the email myself, just now, so that people will not make the mistake of assuming there was any kind of cover-up here. There was nothing wrong with the email I wrote, at all. I often advise the ArbCom to take a closer look at difficult issues. That isn't code for "change your mind" - they would laugh at me if I did that. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, laugh, and then Lart him (I'm shocked that the modern meaning of LART isn't the common one on Wiki, but I'm not going to link to the redirect) but who's quibbling? *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's a shame too. I often have to restrain myself from referring to WP:NLT violations as "cartooney threats". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Or redirect Trolling to "Cut it out, Ritzman!".... *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC for PC

Would an RFC be a good idea to centralize community discussion of PC? Ronk01 talk 04:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I would wait until Friday when we get feedback on the Foundation regarding next steps from their perspective. Hard to really discuss until we have more facts on the table...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Jewish lawyer

I noticed your edit to the article Jewish lawyer; it's an article I've been watching since it came at DYK, though the consensus was not to include it on the main page. The stereotype being described struck me as both offensive and not a common character archetype like those it is grouped with in the list at the end of the page. Much of the content of the page is a summary of history that strikes me as being only tangentially connected to the topic. My question is: do we need this page, either in its present form or at all? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)