Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions petition

note on purpose

I felt the need to separate out this poll after my attempt to support Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition in principle while expressing discomfort with how it appeared to demand that all available configurations of FlaggedRevs be turned on so the community could figure out what to do with them was removed as a "comment". Hopefully, this page will meet the needs of people who feel that the Flagged protection and patrolled revisions proposal is a perfectly acceptable configuration for a trial on English Wikipedia and would prefer not to have an entirely new discussion on the preferred configuration. - Banyan Tree 10:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original poll was not intended to be a "discussion on the preferred configuration" at all. It was not intended to comment on how the community might use the feature, but to allow all who felt frustration at its delay act together to prod the WMF. That's why it was a petition and not a poll. Discussion has happened, and can happen elsewhere. Your comment (and many others) were removed precisely because they were trying to turn the petition into a policy discussion which it was not intended to be. Comments and discussion are for talk pages.

Naturally, you can start your own petition if you like, although I don't see the point, since the original petition isn't anti-FPPR, and indeed many who prefer that option have felt able to sign that petition, lending it a broad-base of support. Your petition will needless to say have a narrower range of support, since those of us who'd prefer something other that FPPR will not be able to sign it. It is a pity you've felt the need to start a more divisive petition, but that's your right.

I'm also not sure who you are petitioning: surely the decision about how exactly to use FR belongs to the community and not to the WMF? The WMF don't mandate policy--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is, and I've been one of many waiting impatiently for it. However, I am for the implementation of the trial configuration that reached consensus. I am not for a free-for-all and would oppose implementing a version of FlaggedRevs that did not receive community approval beforehand. Hence, neither Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition or Wikipedia:Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions (which oddly states it is responding to FPPR, while the original petition isn't even in specific support of FPPR) reflects my stance. My attempt to express contingent support at the FR petition was not considered ideologically pure enough, I guess, and moved to the talk page.

My sense from reading through the comments on the petition that explicitly mention FPPR is that some of those editors did not realize the petition was re-introducing a much broader idea and would likely prefer to avoid supporting the opening of that can of worms.

It would have been far clearer to say from the start, "The community has already passed a proposal, so implement it already!" rather than "The devs should implement some sort of configuration of FlaggedRevs" or "The devs should implement all configurations of FlaggedRevs", which are the two readings I have of the original petition. The proposed configuration actually called "Flagged Revisions" failed to gain consensus in January 2009 (Signpost), so the use of "Flagged revisions" to refer to the extension FlaggedRevs is just another point of confusion for those of us who have been following this topic since last year. I fail to see how re-opening the "what configuration of FlaggedRevs should we use?" discussion, which the original petition's wording does implicitly, will prod the devs to work faster.

The initial excitement of the petition has largely died down so I don't really expect many, if any, editors to add their names here. Like you, I think that this has been an absurd wait given how much Jimbo and others have prodded the community to take a stand on BLPs, etc, and would like to express my displeasure. Unfortunately, the "pro-FPPR editors who will oppose haphazard FlaggedRevs configurations" were left out of the original petition. - Banyan Tree 11:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many pro-FPPR happily signed the petition. I admit there's confusion here - but I don't think the petition caused that. Many people shouting for FR for BLP reasons have also been confused in that they have not realised that the devs have not been working on FR but on the watered-down version, which does little or nothing to help with BLPs. Indeed I now understand that FR could have been implemented some time ago, had it not been for this over-complicated waste of time.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is utter nonsense to suggest that the people who thought you only meant FPPR signed your 'turn it on NOW' petition willingly, in full knowledge that is was just a wavy demand, and related to no existing proposal at all, not least the only one with any support, FPPR. The fact is, you have misled most people into thinking that petition related to the already agreed FPPR trial, and not least by mis-using a quote of Jimbo's at the top of the petition, that ONLY refers to FPPR. The sad fact of the matter is, even if that 'demand' were acted upon, it would not advance the progress on FPPR one bit. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to read minds, but I don't think that's true. It is clear that many signatories favour different approaches. Indeed, I suspect some will not even have hear of the FRPP thingy. Myself, I had no idea that's what the devs were working on. I thought the delay was that FR just wasn't ready - turns out it is, and indeed there's no technical obstacle to turning it on right now, which is certainly the approach I'd favour.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the information you needed to educate yourself on the current state of play about FR, and how irrelevant this demand was to the only proposal that most people in the know would have reasonably assumed this petition related to, was already out there, including being linked from, and present in the context of, the Jimbo quote you lifted to use out of context at the top of it. And irrespective of however you came to be in the situation where you had no clue as to the confusion you were about to unleash with this 'demand' but did it anyway, the reversion of the many subsequent attempts at clarification still need to be accounted for as well. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed "attempts at clarification" were no such thing. They were attempts to define the scope of a petition that had from the outset no defined scope. You can't do that once people have started signing things, as however you define it, that will not be what at least some people meant when they signed it. I realise that that means the petition has some lack clarity - everyone who has signed it wants flagging now - but will favour different types of flagging. That may be regrettable to you - but it can't be changed retrospectively. All we can say is that: "170+ people signed a petition calling for the immediate implementation of flagged revisions" - what the nuances of their meaning is is speculative interpretation.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not attempts at clarfiication? What utter rubbish. Some of the attempts look exactly what they are, purposeful obfuscation. And besides, based on the fact that more people have in the past flatly opposed any use of FR on en.wiki in single polls, it would reasonable for Mike Godwin to just ignore it, as it shows nothing new in the slightest. The petition will continue to be an utter farce if you do not make any attempt to fix the resulting mess which you claim is only down to your original ignorance of the facts, even though you felt able to quote Jimbo as if you had the first clue what he was talking about at the time. MickMacNee (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They could not possibly have clarified, they could only have defined it as FRPR. And whilst many people may be supporters of that, you could not say all who had signed were. It is simply unethical to change the wording of something once people have signed it. Indeed it is fraudulent. As for me "fixing it" what would you suggest?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is unethical is knowingly not clarifying a petition which you know has been widely mis-interpreted. The only reasonable course of action if you won't clarify it and seek re-ratification, is for the Foundation to simply assume it is related to a demand to hurry up the coding for FPPR, because you still don't seem to understand that without that massive assumption from both sides (reasonable, given the actual context of the Jimbo quote and the state of play of FR proposals on en.wiki), the actual petition statement is on its own, is utter meaningless garbage. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You CAN'T clarify someone once people have signed it. It is not possible, since you don't know exactly what they meant when they signed it. You can guess at what they meant, and you may largely be right. But you can't guarantee that's what every person meant, and you must not change words after someone has signed it. That may mean that the petition is open to some level of interpretation - and your interpretation (I concede) may be right for the majority of signatories (but certainly not for all). Am I guilty of badly wording this? Perhaps, yes. But that's it. There was no attempt to deceive and there could not be clarification afterwards: quod scripsi, scripsi.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]