Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geometry guy (talk | contribs) at 20:47, 20 September 2010 (→Keep: option 1: Not worth getting worked up about). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Introduction

The two month trial of Pending Changes ended with "407 in favour of implementation in some form, and 217 opposed, with 44 other responses." As a result of this poll, which indicated significant support for that version of PC, but not consensus, Jimbo asked the Foundation to work on a new version to address the most common concerns which could be addressed in software in a reasonable period of time.

It has been announced that a new version is slated for release on November 9.

The community should now decide if the current implementation should still be used between now and the release of the new version. This poll is only about that question, and will set no precedent for future use.

This poll will run for 7 days, and started at 12:14 (UTC) on 20 September 2010.

Straw poll instructions

There are two options: close or keep.

• Keep:Temporary continuation of PC on most of the currently PC'ed articles is preferred over the temporary removal of PC from all articles - Prefer keeping Pending Changes active until the November release with little change in current deployment, over the alternative of removing it from all articles. It can be removed from pages where it is causing problems, and added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits (in its current incarnation) over semi-protection. If this option has support, a hard stop date of December 31, 2010 will be set for a new poll on interim use of Pending changes in the event that the release of the new version is delayed. Any new use of PC during this interim period should be sparing and focus primarily on BLP's.

• Close:Temporary removal of PC from all articles is preferred over the temporary continuation of PC on most of the currently PC'ed articles - Remove Pending Changes from all article pages until a new trial after the November release is preferred to the alternative of keeping PC enabled on most of the currently PC-protected articles. Revert all pages to their pre-trial protection status unless otherwise indicated. It may still be used within the wikipedia namespace for testing.

Again, this vote is only about what happens between now and release of the new software, a short-term question, and the vote will set no precedent for the future.

Brief comments are, as always, welcomed and will guide community thinking. The poll will be closed strictly according to majority vote.

Straw poll

• Please add brief comments but refrain from discussion inside the poll.
• Vote in the section titled with your choice.

Keep: option 1

1. The alternative is to go through all pages currently protected by PC, and either apply semi-protection or remove protection. This is (a) a lot of work (to either create a bot or do it manually), and (b) either shuts out IP and non-auto-confirmed editors, or exposes the pages to the problems that initially prompted PC protection. TFOWR 12:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Per TFOWR. This is a pointless intermediary though, and I don't really care about it. We need to get a stable version running for a little under several hundred thousand articles, so as long as that is accomplished, it doesn't really matter to me what happens in the interim. NW (Talk) 13:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Seemed to work well and annoyed IPs less than stopping them entirely. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
5. I've found it to be a useful tool and see no disruptive potential in maintaining its use until the new implementation in November. --Jezebel'sPonyo 13:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
6. — Andrew Garrett • talk 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
7. It is a good feature. IP vandals fight specially PC protected pages. It must be something good for Misplaced Pages, if IP vandals do not like it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Keep per TFOWR. I don't like the current PC implementation (though this is more to do with the process than anything else) but it seems sensible to allow such issues to be addressed, and removing PC's temporarily just sounds like more work :) --Errant 13:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
9. The WMF will be less willing to put resources into a new version of PC if it is not being used. Ronk01 talk 15:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
10. - keep on while the tool is tweaked, it is doing no harm at all and I am reviewing on articles where it has worked very well indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Per a cross between TFOW and Off2riorob. Not worth the work of removing and then re-adding PC to the articles it's currently in use on; as well, I do not see any harm that keeping PC temporarily on until the next vote could inflict upon WP or its users. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
12. I agree with Chaoticfluffy above, --Bsherr (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
13. It certainly will help fight vandalism. TYelliot (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
14. I've seen some good IP edits get accepted that otherwise wouldn't have been made if the pages were semi-protected. But regardless, turning PC off temporarily pending the new version's release would cause more trouble than it's worth. 28bytes (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
15. It needs some improvement, but is not a good ground to close PC. Armbrust _Contribs 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
16. Not worth the administrative inconvenience of changing the effective status quo for such a short period. — Richardguk (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
17. It appears to be working well enough to be continued through the time where improvements can be rolled out. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
18. Agree with Chaoticfluffy & Armbrust. Saebvn (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
19. Keep. It works on some pages on which it is already placed and there is no sense in removing it. Even if removed, however, I will be eager for Nov. 9 to come for the trial of the new version and am happy to keep testing. Also, more data can be collected now if we keep it on. CycloneGU (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
20. Keep PC running as it would require too much work to manually unset PC for the articles and reset protection on a case-by-case basis. And, more importantly, it has opened up articles to IP editing that would have to return to protection. — Becksguy (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
21. Selective use of PC serves our anonymous editors better than semi-protection and is a useful level of protection. Clearly, the tool needs to work better but I don't see why it should be turned off while it is being improved. Seems to be a Pareto efficient solution. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
22. Vandalism is a problem, this needs some work, but is part of the solution. Semi-Protecting all articles currently Under pending changes would make the site less open for editing. ϢereSpielChequers 16:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
23. per TFWOR. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
24. Keep as a useful tool for editors. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 16:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
25. Keep, per Skäpperöd (talk · contribs) and Saebvn (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
26. Keep - works well enough for now. - BilCat (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
27. Keep Humans must carefully select which articles are included, and the results should be monitored. This concept can both reduce vandalism, but also encourage the new IP user to make worthwhile edits and, I would hope, become a registered and active editor. Sue Gardner's talk in NYC in August convinced me that careful selection and monitoring is needed to get the results that she and others hope for.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
28. Keep Far, far better than semi- or full-protection Bevo74 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
29. Per previous comments. Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
30. Keep More options than just semi or full protection is good. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
31. Keep Was the previous poll well run? No. Was the originally agreed upon 2 months not followed? Yes. Was that 2 months ever long enough to have a trial run AND make a decision? No. The massive switch over of all PCd articles to semi or full protection (level 2 would go to full I assume? Maybe not which could be another issue itself) would hurt us and create more of a mess then leaving PC on for now. The Statistics (that sadly only came out half way into the last poll, another problem) clearly show many good things that the test has done. Turning it off "for the sake of fairness" doesn't help us, if we want to be fair we should make a decision based on the facts and go from there. James (T C) 17:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
32. Keep The opposes below seem to be procedural in nature. I'm more interested in what is best for the project than in procedural technicalities. Wknight94 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
33. Keep Keep it going.--EchetusXe 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
34. Keep Need to keep PC running so that people can experiment with it further.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
35. Keep It's worked very well to prevent BLP violations on some pages I've been watching, such as those targetted by the Runtshit vandal and the Wisconsin Hoofers defamer. I'd be very sorry to see the PC turned off, and either legitimate IPs edits prevented by Semi-Protection, or the articles opened up to BLP violations, which in the case of the Wisconsin article in particular, have languished for days. Yes, things need to be improved, but let's keep the things are are working well, working well in the meantime. Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
36. Keep. It's a pilot project - keeping it running gives us more information. Switching lots of articles back and forth doesn't serve much of a purpose.   Will Beback  talk  18:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
37. Keep it on the most used pages, but in a worst case scenario I'll accept removing from all pages.--intelati 18:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
38. Keep TFOWR is right, and it seems rather pointless to end this right before another version comes out. Nolelover 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
39. Keep It is still preferable to semi- or full-protection and keeping it running allows a little more time for people to try it out for themselves. Keristrasza (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
40. Keep It appears to me to serve it's purpose adequately. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
41. Keep {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
42. Keep it's worked pretty well on all the pages I have interacted with, Sadads (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
43. Keep.... wonderful for BLPs and articles brutalized by factual errors, but bad for highly vandalized pages. Tommy! 19:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
44. Keep, because it is working, so it can give us more data, and so that the transition from this version to the next will give a clearer comparison. First Light (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
45. I don't see any reason to turn it off and soon after that on again. Svick (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
46. Keep. It's already in place, may as well. It's not like it matters much, it's not doing much harm. -- œ 19:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
47. Keep sort out the speed bug and the revert button. Don't have any mass listing or delisting of pages under pc, allow this on an article by article basis. Develop a policy page detailing how pending changes should be applied.--Salix (talk): 19:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
48. Keep, because of support in the most recent poll, and to avoid churn. But adjust what articles to use it with: it seems to work best for less-popular articlesw and current-events --NealMcB (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
49. Keep, would like to expand in the future and make it a bit easier to add.W Nowicki (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
50. Keep I think it has been effective and should continue for the time being. Captain panda 20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
51. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
52. Keep Duh, when do we expand this to all articles? -- Kim van der Linde 20:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
53. Keep removing PC from articles to add it back is not wikignoming, it's wasting time.--Terrillja _talk 20:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
54. Keep. This is hardly a big deal, so I'm not sure what there is to get worked up about. We get a new version to try in November, and we'll have better continuity (hence less time wasted, and a better trial) if we keep this version ticking over in the meanwhile. Geometry guy 20:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Close: option 2

1. Close Should have been turned off at the end of the "two-month" trial as promised. Speaking as a programmer, this should be easy enough to turn off with a bot. So let's turn it off until it actually works properly, to avoid the problems (which have been accepted as problems and are to be fixed) from effecting these articles. Also I think turning it off will mean the community pays more attention to the opposition and dealing with concerns, which can only be a good thing. - Kingpin (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Close per agreed trial period. Clear disregard for procedure. Close it, fix it, then suggest a new trial. Don't try to force it in.  Chzz  ►  13:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Close the consensus for the original trial was for two months only. Without consensus to keep the feature enabled - and a poll to try and establish that didn't demonstrate consensus - it should be turned off. We shouldn't even be having a poll on this issue, let alone one closed by majority vote. Hut 8.5 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Close continuation appears underhanded and preconceived Jebus989 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Close consensus for the trial was for two months only, which is now over. Daicaregos (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
6. The trial was over weeks ago. Until the new version comes out, there's no point in keeping PC live as we're still not sure as to whether it is effective or not, and the technical issues/speed concerns are still in this current version. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Close we've had the two month trial, time now for reflection and analysis before the next attempt. A "two month trial that turns into a longer one after two months" is not what was agreed. DuncanHill (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Close the two month trial is over. In order to facilitate consensus and goodwill, PC should be turned off until further trials. Revcasy (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Close - It's clear that Pending Changes is seen by some as a BLP magic bullet against potential liability issues. What it actually is is confusing, cumbersome, and ineffectual. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
10. Close. We were told it was a two-month trial. Then instead of it being switched off after two months there was a poll. Then the poll wasn't closed by an uninvolved admin. When it attracted just over a third in opposition, we were told there had to be a second poll. Now this poll will be decided by a simple majority. Doing things this way is alienating people over what has the potential to be a very fundamental change. SlimVirgin 15:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Close as per agreement of a simple trial period.Moxy (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
12. Close: I found it useful too, but if a significant enough portion of the community was opposed that consensus wasn't reached AND a better software solution is on the way, then what's the rush? Misplaced Pages managed for over six years without such a system; it can survive six more weeks.  RGTraynor  15:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
13. Close. What Slim said. This clearly isn't working properly, and the efforts of those who want it active come-what-may to present it as a fait accompli are becoming tiresome. – iridescent 15:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
14. Close 5 months != 2 months. They said two months, make it two months. Pilif12p :  Yo  16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
15. Close Any potential gain or loss from having PC for a few weeks is dwarfed by the perceived lack of procedural fairness. --Xeeron (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
16. Close – I like pending changes and I will almost certainly support its use in the future. However, the agreed conditions for the current trial had a clear time limit, and 65% is not sufficient consensus to extend that. – Smyth\ 16:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
17. Close or don't bother with polls. The original agreement was a two-month limited trial with a requirement for broad consensus to continue. If you want to stick by the idea of community consensus, you have to close the trial; if you want to use the original agreement as a wedge to push Pending Changes forward regardless, you need to abandon the pretext of consulting community consensus. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
18. Close The trial period ended. One of the conditions of the trial was that it would be turned off after it was over. It was to remain off, pending further decision. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
19. Close - Mlpearc powwow 16:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
20. Close - Though I supported the continuation, and felt that am almost two-thirds majority should have seen it so continue, I do feel that as per RGTraynor it is only six weeks - so lets wait till they have the new version ready and have a speedy re-trial then. Codf1977 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
21. Close - Like PC but trial period terms must be followed. Keep will have to be changed in any case so yank for now and come up with better for next time. CompRhetoric (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
22. Close per the original agreement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
23. Close per agreement - whether you like or hate PC, you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
24. Close This was forced on us willy-nilly and the options in the preceding poll were set up to make it a done deal; all we can do now is go back to some semblance of the stated ethos of the project until November 9 when it onmce more becomes "You can edit if you have friends in high places." Yngvadottir (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
25. Close It does not reduce the workload of fighting vandalism. In fact, it makes just as much work as having an unprotected page. The benefits of permitted IPs to edit semi-protected pages directly, pending approval, as opposed to requesting edits on the talk page, are minimal at best, while it is less work to incorporate good changes than it is to revert all the bad ones made under the pending changes model. Semi-protection is the better option. RJC _Contribs 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
26. Ahh, what am I doing in this section? I disagree with most of the "close" arguments here, and I support PC. But we're talking about a removal that a bot can do, and it's (hopefully!) only for a few months, until the much-needed improved version is ready. Even many of us who like PC have said that it needs to be improved. No big deal. I see this short-term removal of the version that's still in beta as being a sign of good will towards those members of the community who have felt ill-treated by the previous poll. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
27. Close. The trial is over. There was no consensus for keeping it in place beyond the trial. Let's wait until the new version is ready (and some of the issues are worked out) before we deploy further. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
28. Close Good lord, apparently everything is a vote now. WP:CONSENSUS is a joke. Close this before we take more chunks out of WP polices that encourage debate and good faith. Regardless of how often you say "will not set a precedent for the future" every time you do something it sets a precedent. User A1 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
29. Close. Get rid of it. — ξ 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
30. Close We were promised that the trial would end, but it has not. I will not agree to let this run until the next version comes out, I demand it be shut down in the interim. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
31. Close for now The trial was completed and no consensus was established for continuing with pending changes at this time, so in order to fufill the understanding that led to the trial being established it should be closed for now. If we don't close now people are going to not support any trials of anything ever again for fear that they will be continued regardless of whether there is consensus for them continuing. Once the changes promised have been made then we can have a new trial of pending changes with a clearly defined level of support established at the beginning for whether it should be continued once the trial is complete. Davewild (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
32. Close I find the whole thing problematic so I want to see it end sooner rather than later. Hekerui (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
33. Close I was for keeping it with no expansions in the last poll.. but now I feel like we are electioneering for a certain result. I don't want to see the usage of the tool expand until it is fixed. And I have a feeling that if we decide to "keep" here, it will end up being decided we meant "keep and expand" after the fact. Better to just turn this thing off now and fix it. —Charles Edward  18:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
34. Close and if it never comes back, I'm fine with that. Courcelles 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
35. Close, with an added "what's the point" for this straw poll. If the decision is to close the pilot project it will just be magicked into overwhelming support and the complaints ignored. Factual arguments are also a little pointless as those will be dismissed with argumentum ad Jimboneum, but PC is exactly the opposite of what this site needs. We have to scale up with increased edits to a larger set of pages and adding a new review process with a new user group does the opposite of scaling up. More automation and force multiplication is needed (the edit filter being a great example of this), not more backlogs. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
36. Close even when this whole question reeks of we're going to push this on nonetheless I'm opposed. This just ain't functioning. (Apologies accepted, Nolelover.) Qwrk (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
37. Close a trial is a trial, not a foothold for keeping forever. The argument that it is a lot of work to end now is invalid, it was billed as a two month trial which would stop after that period. SpinningSpark 18:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
38. Close The last trial did not appear to be terribly successful, and has, indeed, already been reverted in some cases by admins. It is clear that, whatever use we find eventually for pending changes, it won't be as a lighter version of semiprotection. I think we should close it out. Ray 18:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
39. Close and this poll does have future reference. The Christian libertarian approach. JJB 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
40. close Close and Retool, Do another trial once our software concerns addressed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
41. Close - While I agree with some of the Keeps above, the trial said two months and this has gone overboard. Derild4921☼ 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
42. Close - Agreed with above All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
43. Close - --Rockfang (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
44. Close - we agreed on a trial period of two months, and we've already gone past that. Time to close it down until the tool can be substantially improved. Nomader 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
45. Close, per "two-month trial". I also oppose this poll, oppose active undiscussed trial extension, oppose majority vote, and oppose forced Nov 9 trial, but support the PCC. --Yair rand (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
46. Close, two months means two months. Nakon 19:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
47. Close, it's been two months and the implementation failed. It's ok to fail and it's ok to try again, but please turn off this botched, time wasting software. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
48. Close. Trial is over. I hope this feature will never be reinstated. Offliner (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
49. Close. The trial was supposed to end after two months. Two months have passed and the trial has not ended. This is unacceptable. It needs to be disabled until we can reach consensus on how to proceed. That is how it was always supposed to work. Reach Out to the Truth 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
50. Close. Trial is over. Period. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
51. According to the trial information page, "the trial will last for two months and then a community discussion will decide the future of the implementation, the default being deactivation." Absent consensus to the contrary, therefore, the feature should be disabled.  Sandstein  20:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages flagged revisions