The Signpost

Opinion essay

The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Beeblebrox

The following is an op-ed by Beeblebrox, an established editor, administrator, and oversighter on the English Wikipedia. He writes of his experiences with the trial of pending changes in 2010 and in assessing its results. Pending changes is a review system that prevents certain edits from being publicly visible until they are approved by another editor. The system temporarily used on the English Wikipedia was a modified form of the system in use on a number of other Wikimedia projects; nonetheless, because it altered the fundamental editing process in an attempt to stem abuses, it attracted both supporters and opponents in large numbers. For a full list of pages connected to the trial, see Template:Pending changes trial. The views expressed are those of the author only.

The Signpost welcomes proposals for op-eds. If you have one in mind, please leave a message at the opinion desk.



Related articles
Opinion essay

Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends
28 May 2012

The future of pending changes
16 April 2012

The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
29 August 2011

Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
11 October 2010

French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more
27 September 2010

Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes
13 September 2010

Pending changes analyzed, Foundation report, Main page bias, brief news
6 September 2010

Pending changes poll, Public policy classes, Payment schemes debate, and more
23 August 2010

Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more
21 June 2010

Wikipedia better than Britannica, Pending changes as a victory of tradition, and more
21 June 2010

Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
14 June 2010

Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Wikipedia project concludes, brief news
14 June 2010

Hoaxes in France and at university, Wikipedia used in Indian court, Is Wikipedia a cult?, and more
14 June 2010

"Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more
7 June 2010


More articles

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I had good intentions, and they led me straight into Wikipedia Hell. As most of you know, pending changes (PC) was a modified version of the "flagged revision" system used on other Wikipedia projects. It was deployed here as a trial: the trial period expired and ... nothing happened. That's where I come in.

I had applied PC to a few dozen articles during and after the trial period. I got a message on my talk page from a user who noted that I was still using it even though the trial period was over. I didn't think I was doing anything drastic, but it was still bothering some folks because there was no clear mandate to continue using the tool. I'd participated in a number of policy discussions in the past, so I took it upon myself to seek an answer to the question of whether we wanted to retain this tool or not. Six months later, the question remains unanswered.

The RFC

It started with a simple request for comment ([1]). I really didn't know what to expect. I knew the original discussions had been heated, and that many people had believed this tool would create more class divisions on Wikipedia; but after the trial began, the furor seemed to have died down. My goal was to come up with a yes or no answer as to whether we should use the tool, but in retrospect it was naive of me to think it would be that simple. I opened the discussion on February 16. By the 19th it had grown into a long, disjointed conversation on a myriad of topics. There were many misunderstandings, and a lot of confusion regarding who was supposed to do what when the trial ended. That appears to be where this whole thing went wrong. Everyone was angry that nothing was being done, but nobody seemed to know definitively who was supposed to be doing what in the first place.

Things were getting a bit out of control as discussions were duplicated and new participants added new sections without apparently having read previous posts. On March 8 the second phase of the RFC began. The rate of participation was high, and disruption and factionalism were low. However, a small (it seemed to me) but very vocal group of users felt that we shouldn't have a conversation about whether to keep it until it was turned off. Gradually, this became the primary topic of discussion on the talk page. Contributors began to split into two camps: editors who wanted the tool turned off and those of us who felt this was irrelevant. I was dismayed by what I saw as the emergence of an adversarial relationship. The waters were becoming muddied and an unpleasantly confrontational atmosphere was developing on the talk page: a storm was brewing.

To try once again to organize discussion into a format that would yield usable results, I proposed yet another phase. The idea would be a survey for editors to complete. I'd participated in the Wikipedia:RfA Review/Recommend survey and liked the format. I believed this issue was not as contentious as RfA, and that we could use the combined results of the three phases to determine what the community wanted and move forward. I still believe that.

Phase three

I tried to roll out the third phase. I asked for feedback on it, but got very little. Eventually it was clear the increasingly vocal users who wanted to switch off PC didn't like the existence of the third phase. For my part, while I didn't "own" the RFC I did feel it should focus on the particular purpose for which I'd created it: to determine whether or not we should continue to use PC. How could we craft a policy on the use of a tool if we couldn't even decide if we would use it, and how could we expect the Foundation to expend its resources to develop it if we were unable to tell them if it would end up being used? I decided to push ahead as only a few users out of the 100+ who had participated in earlier phases had objected to the final phase. The breakdown of what happened in phase two suggested that we had some fairly usable results, and I didn't want to lose the momentum we had. I wanted to get this over the finish line and answer what I was now calling "The Big Question".

I turned on the questionnaire phase after ten days of discussion that had resulted in changes to both the wording and ordering of the questions. Nobody had proposed an alternative procedure other than reverting back to open discussion, which had already proved to be too messy to yield any usable results in my view. Was I being pushy? Maybe, but I felt it was important to resolve this issue, which had by then been discussed for more than a month.

Two questionnaires had been submitted when a user decided to revert phase three and place it on hold pending further discussion. For the first time, I was actually feeling stress and getting angry about something on Wikipedia. I am usually able to keep my cool fairly well, but accusations were being leveled at me and I felt that irrelevant objections were sidelining a major policy discussion that would have far-reaching consequences. I repeatedly stated that if turning PC off was what it would take to get the conversation back on track that we should just do it. That wasn't good enough for some users, and a new third phase was created whose sole purpose was to discuss the temporary use of the tool. I admit that I began to make some intemperate remarks and some foul language crept into my conversation. I was frustrated with Wikipedia for the first time in years. My third phase was put on hold while the other issue was being resolved. By now the RFC had been open for 45 days.

There's a lot more I could say about what happened next, but it is all there in the archives for those who want the details. Eventually I decided I'd had enough: too much time was being spent debating my alleged motivations as opposed to the actual issues, and I quit the process—a process I'd initiated with the simple intention of answering one question. I un-watchlisted the related pages and haven't looked at them again until now. A couple of users expressed concern that I might quit Wikipedia altogether, and I re-assured them that I was just sick of the tactics used in the debate, and didn't want to be part of it anymore. The RFC was finally closed on May 27, 101 days after I opened it. In the end, all that happened was that PC was "temporarily" taken out of use, the same way it was temporarily turned on. It's still there, we just aren't allowed to use it until we finally answer that "big question" I set out to answer back in February. Nothing more substantive than that was decided. There's still no policy on PC. For all that effort, we failed to achieve the primary goal of deciding whether or not to use the tool, although, after a poll, it was eventually removed from all pages on which it was still being used.

Aftermath

When I got the discussion about PC going, I saw it as my opus, my great contribution to Wikipedia's policy structure. Whether PC was kept or not, we would finally have a policy on it one way or the other after many years of debate. Although I admit I had a preferred outcome, what I wanted most, what Wikipedia needed most, was a yes or no answer. I dedicated many hours to organizing the debate and engaging in discussion. In the end it was a bitter disappointment that accomplished nothing. There seems inevitably to come a point in any such attempt where there are simply too many voices, too many nonsensical objections, too much petty bickering to get anything done. This is a growing, systemic problem at Wikipedia, and eventually we are going to have to deal with it.

When people talk to me about Wikipedia I always tell them that the best thing about it and the worst thing about are the same thing. The consensus-based decision-making model works in a lot of cases, but sometimes it fails us because there are no controls. Nobody was able to keep this process moving in a forward direction once those who wanted to discuss a different issue had derailed it. Perhaps, when the tool has been switched off for long enough, we can look at this again and try to answer that one question without the psychological barrier of its simultaneous non-consensual operation. When that day comes, I'll be happy to be on the other side of the fence as a participant, not the guy trying to be the ringmaster of an out-of-control circus.

NOTE:click here to see this piece as it was originally submitted

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Editor's note: a user has objected to the point of view given in this opinion piece. Editors should be aware that it may not represent a neutral version of events, and is therefore distinct from The Signpost's other reports, all of which seek to be non-partisan.


  • Wow. Kudos to Beeblebrox for an excellent op-ed. Really gives an interesting POV on this whole "fiasco". Nolelover Talk·Contribs 12:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great piece! I remember I was involved in an RFC about patrolled/sighted revisions in 2009 or 2010, and if I remember correctly it was an ugly affair. I feel like on this topic, there are a lot of users (on both sides, probably) who aren't willing to compromise. In my opinion, the recent proposals have been much less drastic than the original ones and should be a compromise which everyone can get behind already. (although I'll admit, I was on wikibreak during the trial period and haven't read the specific proposals being discussed). Anyways, good job and thanks for the great read! –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus-delaying strategies are finally being employed on a large scale by Wikipedians who are afraid they won't like the result of a consensus-finding process. At the moment we seem to have no effective techniques for countering them. Hans Adler 13:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Effective technique: Get the oversighters to remove the edits which delay the process.
      (I said that it would be effective, not that it would be a good idea :) –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stopped following the discussion after a week or so, so it's good to know what happened. The lesson here is that clarity is important when asking for the initial decision - if the original PC trial proposal had been either "We will trial it for 3 months then turn it off until we have completed an RFC on turning it on permanently" or "We will trial it for 3 months then keep it on until we have completed an RFC on keeping it on permanently" the whole mess would have been avoided. I very much fear we are risking similar problems with the proposed image filter, if it is implemented there will be people saying "Hey! This isn't what I voted for!" regardless of how it is implemented, because the current proposal is vague (and even more unfortunately is vague on the the hard questions). Rich Farmbrough, 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • At least the image filter will be opt-in, so even if it isn't what people wanted they won't have to use it as far as I can tell. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I just congratulate Beeblebrox on the very telling expression "the guy trying to be the ringmaster of an out-of-control circus"? A lovely turn of phrase which summarizes it - and perhaps other aspects of Wikipedia - beautifully! :) Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think the outcome was totally reasonable: The endless trial was finally ended, and because there was no agreement on future use of Pending Changes, no policy for or against it was created. I'm sorry this caused Beeblebrox to feel like his effort was wasted, but sometimes "maybe" is actually the right answer. Kaldari (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit longer than my normal comment, but I strongly feel that the editorial Op-Ed by Beeblebrox that was featured in the signpost ignored and mischaracterized the actual objections to the pending changes fiasco. Concerning the objections, he says that he "felt this was irrelevant." I think it only fair to explain exactly what the objections were that he felt to be irrelevant.
The main objection is that consensus was ignored and that trust was betrayed. There was a consensus for a two-month trial with a fixed ending date. Those who supported the trial trusted those who were to run the trial to do what they said they would do and end it on that date. The ending date was ignored. In response to this, there was a new discussion and a new consensus for a "we really mean it this time" drop-dead date. This consensus was also completely ignored. Then the RfC was closed with a two week deadline for removal from all articles -- which was ignored.
On top of the above, we saw an admin get blocked for following the clear consensus and removing pending changes from articles. If that doesn't discourage admins from following consensus, I don't know what will. As far as I can tell this block had no repercussions. Instead I we saw claims that consensus is a false god, claims that consensus can be overridden by invoking the magic BLP word, etc.
The op-ed piece acts as if Beeblebrox was just asking an innocent question about usage of pending changes, but his question started off by claiming there was "no clear policy on its continued use" - once again ignoring the clear consensus. At this point his asking the question again was very much like what certain kings used to do - trying someone over and over and keeping the jury locked up until they they returned the desired verdict.
Consider the following comments by other editors who also feel that this has harmed Wikipedia:
Comments by other editors
>"Many editors consider the refusal to end the trial on the date promised as a breach of trust"
>"It's impossible to assume good faith when a past assurance continues not to be honored (i.e. begs the question: How can we trust you to honor the results of discussions if you're not honoring the results of a previous one?)"
>"The main reason the trial got in in the first place was due to users supporting with the understanding that it would be removed, and only because it would be removed, saying they wanted to try it out. If we don't keep the promise of turning features off after the trial, this factor will be lost for future trial proposals"
>"The poll that produced the original consensus to turn the feature on was for a trial with a specified end date. In the absence of any consensus to make the feature permanent or start another trial the feature should be removed from articles. Failing to do this has damaged the credibility of any future software trial proposals."
>"I disagree that this is just removal solely for the sake of making a point. This is making good on the original agreement that the trial would end, by the end of 2010 for the last agreement. Anything beyond that wasn't approved, it's that simple. In the absence of any community agreement to do anything else this is the default option and the one we must follow. The only way around that is to totally ignore the original agreement, which totally goes against the whole concept of consensus."
>"This is necessary to deal with negative feelings about being lied to. I must say I have trouble with those myself and feel a strong irrational urge to oppose to everything related to pending changes."
>"The only consensus was for a fixed-term trial, with a clear expectation that if no further consensus arose then we would revert to the status quo ante. We need to deliver on that promise, to retain credibility for future trials in other areas."
>"If 'trial' comes to mean 'turned on indefinitely', no-one else will get consensus to trial other new ideas in future."
>"WP:IAR doesn't excuse conscious deceit. The extension of this trial beyond two months was a betrayal, not 'ignoring rules to make a better encyclopedia'... The decision to go back on one's word isn't something that is done by accident or mistake."
>"I increasingly feel this debate has become about something much more important than pending changes. It's become about good faith. A sizable portion of the editor base clearly feels that without a clear consensus to continue the pending changes trial that the original commitment to end the pending changes trial after two months should have been upheld. ... Wikipedia is already hurting in recruiting and retaining editors, and cannot afford to reach a point where change and compromise has become impossible because of distrust."
The above quotes clearly show that harm was done. You cannot unring that bell. Turning off pending changes was just a baby step toward mitigating that harm. We need a firm and clear published policy that promising to try something for a limited amount of time and then breaking that promise will never again be tolerated on Wikipedia, and a formal apology for doing it in this case. That is the bare minimum required to start to regain the editor's trust. Months later, we still have no apology, no written policy, and no assurance that consensus will not be ignored again. Instead we have an editorial Op-Ed in the Guidepost implying that ignoring consensus is perfectly acceptable and that complaining about ignoring consensus is "disruption and factionalism." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument over PC is for others, but I feel the contention that the Op-Ed (which is not an editorial, incidentally: the Signpost does not endorse any view it publishes) legitimises breaking consensus is a non-starter. No-one deliberately tries to ignore consensus per se, and evidently, in Beeblebrox's' opinion he wasn't. What you have above is his opinion. incdientally, I realise that people may not know that this is to be the first in a series -- we're not giving Beeblebrox a special podium per se, only a podium in order to entertain and provoke debate. Which we've succeeded in IMHO. We have considered, and will consider in future again, running opinion pieces in pairs in order to appear more neutral. Would that appeal? We still would not tolerate personal attacks, however, and the above does read like an overly personalised complaint. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 19:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope not to have strayed into personal attack territory, but of course I would likely be blind to that. If anyone thinks I have done so, feel free to suggest more neutral wording and I will change what I wrote. Alas, while the Op-Ed could say things like "long, disjointed conversation" "out of control" and "without apparently having read previous posts" about a group of editors, any response must necessarily refer to the one editor who wrote the Op-Ed. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thrilled that we're getting some op-ed submissions finally! Time for me to work on one that's been on the back burner for months, then ... urgh. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took essentially a directly opposed position to Beeblebrox's during all the stages of this pending changes discussions and trial, and I feel he has commented on the matter in a perfectly fair way that I too would endorse as a summary. I'm additionally glad to see his explanation of his feelings during the later stages, as a clarification of what we could all tell was getting confused. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, I cannot understand how anyone can characterize "Nobody was able to keep this process moving in a forward direction once those who wanted to discuss a different issue had derailed it" can be considered commenting on the matter in a perfectly fair way. Asking that consensus be followed is not derailing forward progress. His original decision to assert that there is "no clear policy on its continued use" in the face of an overwhelming consensus against its continued use was a main source of the conflict. This is an Op-Ed piece showing his side of the dispute (which is fine), not a balanced description of the dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The easiest way (well in a way the easiest) to have known the amount of yes or no is to give 3 options -Absolute yes, Absolute No and Objections/Abstain. General Rommel (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was an opponent of pending changes when it was first proposed, but I came to see it as it should be used: an effective vandalism-fighting tool, to be used in extreme cases, much like page protection. Unfortunately, this seems to be an All-Or-Nothing thing in most peoples' minds. In which case, I'll have two scoops of nothing, thank you very much. If PC is wheeled out again explicitly as an anti-vandalism device for certain high risk articles, consensus could happen. But that's what it will take. Carrite (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending changes was an OK tool and its a shame we've removed it. I'd prefer that we implemented flagged revisions the way it works on DE and elsewhere, but I guess we'll have to wait for the next major incident before we can get consensus to shut the barn door. ϢereSpielChequers 13:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the objections raised above: I think some of them may have rather missed the point. The purpose of the RFC I created was to answer one single question. That question being: Should we have pending changes on the English Wikipedia in some form, or should we reject it entirely?" The short term question of whether it was turned on at that time is a different issue. Who betrayed who and who was to blame for the never ending trial is a different issue. When I say those points are irrelevant, I'm not saying they are entirely irrelevant and should never be discussed anywhere, but rather that they are not relevant to that one question. I designed the RFC to help determine the future of pending changes, but it was hijacked and re-focused on the past instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas, you didn't just "ask a simple question." You led off your question by asserting that there was "no clear policy on its continued use" (Link) in the face of an overwhelming consensus against its continued use.
Since then you have been characterizing any attempt to disagree with your original assertion as being "irrelevant", "a different issue", "missing the point", "hijacking", etc. Nobody made you claim that there was no clear policy on its continued use. Once you made that claim, it shouldn't have surprised you that folks objected to it.
Asking whether we should we have pending changes on the English Wikipedia in some form or whether should we reject it entirely cannot be separated from the fact that a large number of editors are convinced - with good reason - that the answer to that question will be ignored unless the answer supports continued use of pending changes.
You can't just jump into a situation where consensus is being ignored and trust has been lost and ask for a third consensus on the same question. Naturally the answer was "we answered that twice already. Why are you claiming that we didn't?" Did you read the "Extended content" above? Were all of those editors "missing the point"? Please consider the possibility that it is you who are missing the point.
Change of topic: Is this what we want Signpost to be? One person posting an Op-Ed defending his POV and another editor posting a reply defending another POV, followed by a long back-and-forth? I much preferred it when Signpost treated issues (even controversial arbcom rulings) in an unbiased manner, and comments were mainly non-controversial corrections or clarifications to the article. Is the path we are on here really good for Wikipedia? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the trial was badly mismanaged, as I said myself in the piece. If a contractor did a crappy job remolding your kitchen would you blame his tools and make sure nobody ever used those specific tools again, or would you blame the contractor who wielded the tools improperly? In the end that is what happened here. People didn't like how the trial was handled, and PC itself took the blame instead of whoever it was (still waiting for an answer there) that messed up the trial. There may well have been a pre-existing consensus to end the trial. I have never said there was not. That simply was not the point of the RFC when it opened. It's unfortunate that folks were unable to look beyond their hurt feelings and evaluate the usefulness of PC objectively as a separate matter from "who screwed up the trial?" I would suggest that you may be a good candidate to write a full op-ed rebuttal for a future issue as you seem to have a lot to say on this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like the idea of PC and if the choice was mine to make would have retained it (with possible improvements). If the above mentioned contractor did the above mentioned crappy job and there was no possibility of ever changing contractors, how would you react to a survey about use of the same tools in the future? What if the contractors were still in the kitchen tearing things up despite being told several times to stop? Would you calmly ignore the ongoing fiasco, pretend that there was some other contractors available and say "I approve of future use of the tools I am hearing being misused in my kitchen right now"? What if the question started out by falsely claiming that there was no clear policy on whether the workers should do as they were instructed and stop?
BTW, the question of who messed up the trial is pretty easy to determine. Just look at who blocked an admin for following consensus and removing PC from articles, then look at those who supported the block and opposed the blocking admin experiencing any negative consequences for his actions. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just like to note that a few changes were made just before this was published. This happened much more suddenly than I expected and I happened to be camping at the time and did not have a chance to review them, in particular this one [2] which I believe removed some important context from the front end of the piece. Despite that I have generally found the Signpost staff responsive to feedback, you might want to suggest those changes to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Op-Ed, Beeblebrox. The entire PC RfC process was painful and depressing. We need a way to limit an editor to only respond to direct questions once it's clear they're merely repeating themselves; perhaps a new policy/guideline called WP:NOTHINGNEW or an expansion of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Otherwise, as happened in the PC debate (IMO), an editor can use a continuous stream of redundant objections to dominate a debate and wear down the "other side". --JaGatalk 21:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with such a policy encourages the ignoring of legitimate objections, knowing that any followup questions will be suppressed. It also is an invitation to biased enforcement. For example, Beeblebrox (who I believe to be discussing things calmly and in good-faith, not battling) has mentioned on several occasions that he believes that the issue of the tools and the past history of those using the tools are completely separate issues. I disagree, but it's a reasonable argument. He has restated that argument several times, but in my opinion he has refined and improved the argument at each iteration. Should he have been stopped on the first repeat? Or, perhaps you were only thinking of suppressing my responses to his argument, which have also been refined and improved as we discuss the issue?
In my opinion, continued discussion is not the problem. That's what we do on Wikipedia in order to seek consensus. In my opinion, the problem is that the Signpost is the wrong place for it. I don't like having this conversation here, but I like the alternative of letting an Op-Ed with a particular POV on an issue that is vital to the operation of Wikipedia stand with no rebuttal even less. The software that copies anything posted on the talk page to the article makes it worse. That feature should be used only on the normal Signpost articles, not on controversial Op-Eds. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you're up to six rebuttals... --JaGatalk 08:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bad count: four, not six
Bad count.
Beeblebrox's Op-Ed:[3] COUNT: Beeblebrox = 1
Support for Beeblebrox from Drilnoth:[4] COUNT: Beeblebrox = 1, Beeblebrox plus supporters = 2
My reply to Beeblebrox:[5] COUNT: Guy Macon = 1
My striking "editorial" and inserting "op-ed" in response to criticism by Jarry1250:[6] (No count, not a rebuttal)
My asking for wordinng suggestions in response to criticism by Jarry1250:[7] (No count, not a rebuttal)
Support for Beeblebrox from DGG:[8] COUNT: Beeblebrox = 1, Beeblebrox plus supporters = 3
My reply to DGG:[9] COUNT: Guy Macon = 2
Beeblebrox restating his position and claiming that those who disagree are missing the point:[10] COUNT: Beeblebrox = 2, Beeblebrox plus supporters = 4
My response to Beeblebrox:[11] COUNT: Guy Macon = 3
Support for Beeblebrox from JaGa. including a call to suppress disagreement with Beeblebrox:[12] COUNT: Beeblebrox = 2, Beeblebrox plus supporters = 5
Beeblebrox responding to my previous comment:[13] COUNT: Beeblebrox = 3, Beeblebrox plus supporters = 6
My response to Beeblebrox and JaGa:[14] COUNT: Guy Macon = 4
General comment from Beeblebrox (not in response to any particular comment):[15] (No count)
Jaga miscounts rebuttals in support of his call to suppress disagreement with Beeblebrox:[16] (Not actually supporting Beeblebrox, so No count)
I correct Jaga's incorrect count:[17](No count)
TOTAL ASSERTIONS/REBUTTALS: Beeblebrox = 3, Beeblebrox plus supporters = 6, Guy Macon = 4 --Guy Macon (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what the drama was that started all this, I think? It was when the "trial" (which was supposed to stop), didn't. That is what got a lot of people's backs up on this. When you create a limited time trial, the trial stops at the specified time on the specified day - it doesn't carry on regardless of the fact that the trial has expired. I'm pretty sure I speak English, and I have a good idea what the words "The trial ends on..." mean. It means it stops there and then, and doesn't continue. Not "Oh we'll leave it running past the closing date while everyone decides what we do with it now." - They decided what to do with it when they started the trial - turn it off on the closing date.
There is obviously no point in listening to the people campaigning for PC now, since they clearly make promises they have no bloody intention of keeping. They broke a promise, why should we allow them to make anymore?  BarkingFish  22:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The exact wording of the poll that approved a trial of Pending Changes is here: Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Poll. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpts from poll

The exact wording of the poll that approved a trial of Pending Changes is here: Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Poll.

In addition to the "Please note: This is for a two-month trial only." at the top of the poll, the following comments from the poll make it clear that those voting in favor were not voting for retaining Pending changes on articles indefinitely:

"I believe it is also important to make sure that the trial is stopped, with everything back to normal at the elapsed time."
"I think a major concern among some of the opposers (to the trial) is that a trial is just an excuse to get it turned on."
"Support with caveat that a clearly defined trial (time, scope, evaluation) should be agreed, to prevent a drift into long-term de facto policy."
"Do not support 'trial==something we will do forever since it is now policy' position."
"The only thing that brings me to support this is the fact that it is a trial."
"Support I was opposed to the generic "shall we try flagged revs" but this seems like an appropriately controlled experiment."
"If it turns out this thing doesn't work out, it's only for two months."
"I'm not convinced this is the optimal solution but would like to see a limited trial."
"Support a trial for two months to allow us to evaluate how it actually works in practice."
"The key point is that this is a trial."
"Support as a trial only."
"Support a trial, let's see how it goes."
"Something needs to be done, and a trial has few drawbacks."
"A trial ia a good way to assess and debug any system."
"No harm in a trial."
"We need to at least try this."
"Support Let's see what happens."
"Won't know how this works until we give it a try."
"There cannot be any harm in trying something."
"I've no problem with a trial run."
"This will let us see if such a system could work."
"We need to do a trial and see how it goes."
"The first step need not be perfect. Trial sounds a great idea."
"Two months seems short for such a major trial."
"It's worth a trial run."
"A trial can't hurt anyone."
"Trial is harmless."
"At some point it needs a field test."
"Some people seem to think that a trial lasting for 2 months will ruin the project ... I haven't seen any convincing arguments against just checking whether this will work or not, and that's all we're doing."
--Guy Macon (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Guy, exactly what I was getting onto. You see some of those comments though - "A trial can't hurt anyone", "A trial is harmless", and so on... this is where it all went tits up. The trial (Proposal 17, which was put into effect) as clearly stated it was for two months only. Those two months turned into G*d only knows how long, and I think that dug up a shedload more opposition to PC than it had in the first place. After that fiasco, who now is going to listen when someone proposes another trial or a reimplementation? I know for one, I won't.  BarkingFish  11:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This situation can be salvaged. First, we need published policy that makes it clear that promising to try something for a limited amount of time and then breaking that promise will never again be tolerated on Wikipedia, and a formal apology for doing it in this case. That is the bare minimum required to start to regain the trust of the dozens of editors who still feel betrayed. It would also help if those who think these concerns are irrelevant would at least attempt to understand what the actual objections are. And, optionally, we might want to address the fact that Jimbo Wales weighed in as a strong supporter of Pending Changes, and ask ourselves if some editors and administrators decision to continue to use PC beyond the promised deadline despite a clear consensus to stop might have been influenced by this, which I am sure was not Jimbo's intent. Trust can be restored, but only if those who were involved in breaking that trust are willing to commit to never breaking it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the biggest issue here was one that has been an ongoing one on en.wikipedia - that of trust. When people break trust, consensus becomes almost impossible because the people who got lied to feel that any compromise is a tainted one and will probably be broken by those who did it the first time, so the discussion breaks down into a war between rival groups of activists who won't give an inch, and new participants get either confused or intimidated and simply don't participate at all. I've seen that on a smaller scale in other discussions. Beeblebrox is to be commended for starting the discussion and, from my view, running it reasonably well as far as it could be run (the term "herding cats" comes to mind), but a successful conclusion to the discussion would only have been possible if there wasn't a sour taste in some people's mouths from the very beginning. That is not Beeblebrox's responsibility, but that of the small group of activists with a "come hell or high water" attitude to what they saw (in good faith) as a positive reform, but which they couldn't get the community to agree on. Orderinchaos 02:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]





       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0