Wikipedia talk:PC2012/Dank

List of quotes from the second-quarter 2012 RfC

What I'm trying to do here is give people some quotes from the RfC that might or might not turn out to be handy in distinguishing different versions of PC. When the RfC closed in May, several of us made posts attempting to summarize points made during the RfC. I attempted to cover all the main Option 1 points in the order they were made (given in quotes), but I didn't necessarily quote the fullest or best presentation of each point, just an excerpt from the first voter who made the point. Just to give an example of how this list might be useful in distinguishing different versions of PC: the first point is "everyone should be able to edit equally". If you imagine a PC-protected page which presents an unprotected "working" version of the page (including edits which have not been "accepted") to every logged-in user always, and to IPs who pull up the "preview" mode, and shows the "frozen" version of the page to everyone else ... whether this is a workable version of PC or not, it's a version that could theoretically, partially, deal with that complaint, so I've included that complaint in this list. Anyone is welcome to list additional points here, from the RfC or otherwise. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• "everyone should be able to edit equally"
• "create huge mountains of work ... most suggested edits to pages under PC were not constructive, and the edits which were useful did not justify the expense of editor effort to weed out the problematic edits."
• "does active harm to Wikipedia and its reputation if understaffed/ignored"
• "we can reasonably anticipate that PC will be used more liberally, e.g. every BLP."

  As I have pointed out, "Every BLP" is logistically impossible. Remember that I last calculated it at 65 BLPs for every user with reviewer permissions, and that's just covering Category:Living people. <vitriol removed> —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "In some ways, "reviewing" could make things worse-- implying that an article has been 'screened for quality' in some way, when in fact, it's only screened for obvious vandalism."
• "Wikipedia is already complex enough, especially for newbie editors."
• "doesn't even work on high-traffic pages, which seem like they'd need it the most"
• "despite being active in page protection for two years, I've never seen a single situation where I thought PC would be a better solution than just semi'ing [semiprotecting] the page ... Witness the Russian Wikipedia,"
• "The often-obscure change leaves a reviewer scratching their head as the editor who made the edit has long gone."
• "increases the ability of anonymous editors to introduce errors (unless the reviewer is 'all knowing')."
• "the responsibility for accepting edits is currently on the entire community (implicitly, by not reverting them) - transferring that onto a single individual (by explicitly approving an edit) does not seem like a desirable situation to me."
• "Any official control of content by a select group is completely antithetical to the spirit of WP"
• "It risks producing inadvertant content forks [when people leave out of frustration]"
• "it seems widely agreed that it fails to adequately protect BLPs"

  This doesn't seem to be the case<vitriol removed>... —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Not until this reviewer "right" can be taken away from administrators just as easily as it will undoubtedly be taken away from regular editors"

  This is impossible as Reviewer rights are included in the administrator tools by default. This means that in order to remove it from User:Rafael_Perez (Not an actual user, just an example), you need to desysop him. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "[PC] was overused as a whole and frequently used on pages that required specialist knowledge to correctly review. This created a situation where the number of reviewers capable of approving the changes with confidence was proportionately low to the number of people trying to edit the page. Combined with the logged use of forcing people to either approve or decline a change, it also made it problematic for people wanting to help: if they approve a change that turned out to be "wrong," then their name is just as much on it as the person making the change. Similarly, should they decline a change that turned out to be "right," they opened themselves up to accusations of not assuming good faith or biting the newbies. In either case, it could be something used against you in the future, so instead of making a choice, people would choose not to choose. Because of this, changes would sit in the queue for long periods of time."
• "By the way, we already have pending changes waiting at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. It, too, is backlogged, and I'd like to see supporters of proposal 2 or 3 work on that before endorsing a plan to expand it even further."

  The argument being made is that it's deficient. <vitriol removed> any issues with that category will eventually be faced by PC as the two are almost identical in purpose. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Because I was automatically granted 'reviewer' status, any of my edits automatically implied approval of the prior/pending edit, whether I intended to or not. As a gnome, I only have a fleeting interest in quite a large number of articles, my gnoming actions would actually create a false sense of security."
• "Seeing their edit seem to disappear will put off newcomers."

  I've been told <vitriol removed> that an editor will see his edit immediately after making it, but I don't think this will matter as the mere implication that you have to gamble with reviewers will be its death sentence. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rhetoric

Jeremy,

Please tone down the rhetoric. I appreciate that you think that PC supporters have got the wrong end of the stick and I think you may well be right, but responding in the way you have above is counter productive. Let's try to deal with the facts as much as we can. If motives or understandings are wrong this will come out in the discussion and people can back away from positions that have been shown to be mistaken. If we talk mostly in terms of the deficiencies of the people involved we just get people's backs up, which leads to the entrenching of positions and to the discussion getting nowhere.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The anti-Catholic language, generally called "hate speech" these days, is a problem (and btw, it's a problem I'm not sure how to solve on Wikipedia, and something I'd like to learn more about). One option, not my first choice, is to move this page to my user-talk-space to give me more leeway to reject edits that don't seem to move the conversation forward. Jeremy, are you interested in retracting or changing any of the above? - Dank (push to talk) 10:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I will stop showing contempt for pro-PC users the instant they actually start abiding by policy and get something done. This whole mess has been written less from the general user's POV and more from those supporting PC. One overextended trial that supporters actively resisted shutting down well after the amended termination date, malformed discussions aplenty, and a "majority" that can't even agree on the basest of shit does not spell "Show me good faith", it spells "Bend over and just fucking take it." —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude - a brief look at your recent contributions to this topic clearly shows a net loss to constructive progress - if thats what you want then carry on but imo you are unable to contribute to this issue constructively at the moment - you are attacking and demeaning who you see as fools and idiots and liars - its not helping dude - Youreallycan 06:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've avoided the whole crime-and-punishment side to Wikipedia for as long as I've been here, and I don't mean to be making any judgments on Wikipedians; that bores me to tears. I do think that extreme language tends to divert the conversation from talking about the issues to talking about people, so if it's okay, I'm going to turn on auto-archiving for this page; that will probably remove the section above soon. - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the vitriol from each of my points. However, that does not mean I intend to actually work on this policy (I have stated, time and again, I have zero interest in creating a working policy, and part of that is due to the behavior of PC supporters), nor am I willing to get in a pissing match with David Levy or Fluffernutter. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. Still, feel free to peek in every once in a while, and tell us if we're going in the right direction. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Closer?

• Question for Dank

As a suggested closer you may be becoming or appear to me to be overly involved in the discussion? - The mere fact that you have this page seems to rule you out as a closer for me, what do you think , are you/can you remain viewed as an uninvolved neutral when you are so closely involving yourself in the discussions? Youreallycan 06:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• My only agenda here is that, when my role with PC is over, people will say, "Dan did a good job." I'm not interested in having a good excuse that I followed the rules; I'm interested in seeing the process succeed. I think success here is going to be measured in a series of successful votes, and I would love to see that series start without another word from me ... but if it doesn't start happening soon, then I have some suggestions about how to put a vote on the table and get people to show up and vote on it. Is there anything I've said so far that appears biased, YRC? - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) = No - (but the more you input to the discussion the clearer it will become that you will be unable to be also a closer and its better imo if I make my opposition and concerns known earlier rather than later) - My concern is just that I feel if you want to be a closer you would rather take a back seat in the direction and discussion. Personally I feel your have been a strong benefit in guiding the discussion in the past and moving forwards I would prefer your energy in that - We can more easily find closer, its just a personal position. - I have concerns and object to you taking both on. - thats not a reflection on you, I would object to anyone in the same position. - I do really appreciate your input though. regards - Youreallycan 13:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I'm replying to WT:PC2012#a third closer. It's not a good idea to solicit particular closers for contentious RfCs. We gave notice at WP:AN, twice, for a week, that closers were needed and anyone was welcome. Apparently, Blade and I were the only ones dumb enough to take this on :) I can't speak for Blade, but I would have no problems with any disinterested third closer jumping in before the first mini-vote. Changing closers after a vote would be unusual, and probably it would reduce people's confidence in the process. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have stated my objections to you being a closer due to your level of involvement i n the discussions and I will leave it at that for the time being - regards - Youreallycan 13:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points, I'll ask Blade for his opinion, maybe ask again over at WP:AN for closers, and report back here. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool- yes feedback will be good - thanks - Youreallycan 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Dank is merely reiterating points us opponents brought up as a starting point for getting policy thrashed out. He's taking no sides in the dispute, which is just as well - he'll be the one ditching the medic insignia when he realizes even supporters can't agree on the finer points of implementation, if the various views in all the previous discussions are any indication. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that the battle to stop PC in its tracks is over, in my opinion the worst outcome for opposers would be if PC is introduced in a way that gives admins carte blanche to do as they please. That is what the draft policy does. If what you are saying is true, opposers have the potential to wield the balance of power in this discussion. While obviously disappointed about the introduction of PC, I would recommend that they use it to get the safeguards they think are most important. —WFC— 14:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC
    • Battle/power - these are mentalities we need to get over and move on - We need to get more users involved in this discussion - it not really an option to have the oposers to the tool create its working guidelines - although its not imo so important really as guidelines and policy are always being edited and discussed and improved as whatever is arrived at here by switch on day = this will be especially true if the numbers of users involved in this part of the ongoing process is minimal - users should attempt to reduce battlefield comments and create as welcoming an environment for discussion as possible so as to encourage more users to join in the discussions - Youreallycan 15:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • • • • The opposers have a better idea of what they want with PC, but even they can't agree on anything but the grossest part of the implementation (use/don't use). Combined, and assuming I'm correct in assensing what Dank's saying, there'll barely be any proposals that hit two-thirds amongst supporters and opposers alike, let alone 90%. The rest will be scattershot in the 35-50% range. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
          • The battleground mentality needs to go, I agree. Note the context in which I used the word "battle" (the battle to stop PC in its tracks is over). But I stand by my choice of the word "power". It's important that opposers realise that they really do have the ability to influence this policy. As Jeremy eludes to, and the closers of the previous RfC themselves realised, there is disagreement among many supporters (including ourselves) on how PC should be be used. Quite a few want certain safeguards in place, others don't. If opposers engage constructively in this process, they have the opportunity to ensure that what they see as the most important safeguards are indeed put in place. If on the other hand they choose to ignore this process, use of PC will presumably end up more or less unrestricted. —WFC— 17:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Was that the problem, do you think I want the opposers creating the guidelines? What I'd like is to see how much ground we can cover with 90% support. I don't want to say more until I've gotten responses from Blade and then from WP:AN. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • No not at all, that is just something I see as a possibility if a negative discussion space is allowed to be created. As I said its only that I see a high level of involvement in formatting structure and in general discussion as being oppoised to a closers rationale of uninvolved neutrality - Youreallycan 16:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• I think Dank is helping the discussion along without taking any particular side. I think that some earlier discussions could probably have done with that. I commend Dank. Yaris678 (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that Dank has been an immense help in moving the discussion along, and that he has tried to stay neutral in the process. (I think I remember him expressing some concern himself a couple weeks ago about the balance between becoming involved in the process and sitting out to see it fizzle and sputter.) I do have one suggestion, though. I the link to this page should be removed from the list at WP:PC2012 where it says "Proposals for votes are being worked up on a number of subpages, currently:". Its position there implies that Dank is working up a proposal for votes, which would indeed be odd. The link from the talk page is sufficient, I think. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Added a link to this page instead and put it in the right context. I have also provided a link to the list of issues that was drawn up after the trial. Yaris678 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Speaking of mini-votes, I've prepared an idea that I think is ready to be voted upon. Would somebody mind having a look at the formatting/layout/etc.? It's located here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• I got the message from Dan, and I'm fine with what his suggestion. I'd also be more than happy to get someone else on board to help as a fresh victim *ahem* closer :). It's good to have another point of view so we can come to the best possible decision. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool - yes, lets hope for another volunteer will step up to the mark - so many have commented that there are few users/admins that have a cite-able neutral position - we need more input here all round - site notices if we are allowed ? Youreallycan 05:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't want inexperienced closers. WP:AN would be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:AN will be fine to seek out additional admin closers - I meant site notices if possible to advertise and attract a few more contributors to the discussions about formulating PC policy. - Youreallycan 04:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm headed out the door to Wikimania; can I get back with you when I get back? - Dank (push to talk) 10:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Having read this thread twice and followed its various links, I admit I don't understand why you, Dank, are not planning to stick with your co-closer role until the end of the process. I don't want to second-guess you if you honestly think you'd be playing a more useful role that way. But I'm not seeing any problem with involvement—this page clearly exists to facilitate your coordinating the various discussions, not controlling their content—and I'll frankly be very disappointed if we can't count on you to help bring about a final close that's measured, fair, and comprehensible. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Different people have different notions of how involved a closer can be ... one popular answer is, "Not at all". I'm happy that I've been able to ask people at Wikimania their opinions of PC ... I wouldn't be able to do that in a traditional closer role. I'm confident Blade will do a good job, but I agree that we shouldn't just let the question of who will close in October hang in the air. - Dank (push to talk) 09:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I see it less as a question of "how involved" and more as "what constitutes involvement". Whatever. Better safe than sorry, I suppose. This is rather awkward for me to say, but I'll go ahead and say it, to avoid vague implications and other sorts of beating around the bush. I have enormous respect for Blade as an editor, an administrator, and a human being. I do not have great faith in Blade as a closer. I consider the close of the last RfC deeply problematic, and I am more than a little reluctant to spend god knows how many hours on this process over the next three months only to have whatever RfC results from it closed in a similar way. At the very least, I want to feel confident there's someone on board who will take a comprehensive, methodical approach and take the time to document that he or she has done so. Rivertorch (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Those closers had an utterly impossible job. I suspected as much after I read the RfC, but after asking around about Pending Changes at Wikimania, I'm sure of it. Let's do this: I'll ask again at WP:AN if anyone else wants to close. After the first mini-vote, I'll ask again for anyone who has any doubts about The Blade, me, or any other closer to please talk about your doubts in the context of our first-mini close, and then we'll have a quick vote on whether to retain the current closers and how long we should remain closers for PC discussions ... obviously, it's not my call to make, but I'm concerned that if we have a string of votes ... as I think is necessary, we're never going to get approval for every good idea all at once ... then we're also going to get a string of "I didn't like that close, so let's get new closers". - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, to be clear: I'm agreeing with your objection ... that is, I would like to see all the closers making a major investment of time listening to all points of view, and given that investment of time, I think it would be counter-productive for me or any of us to pull out in October, given that we survive a confidence vote. I'll run this by The Blade. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:AN#WP:PC2012. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)