Wikipedia talk:PC2012/Monty845
Initial Thoughts
editMy thinking is that a limited rollout, such as the one I outlined on the project page, will help alleiviate concern that pending changes will be used excessively, or in ways that will reduce the freedom editors currently have. The latter phases do allow pending changes as a more restrictive option then what is currently on an article, but only after discussion, which should mitigate the potential downside. Monty845 01:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I like the general idea of a limited rollout, but you lost me at phase three. protection requests should be handled as promptly as possible, espescially on BLPs. I can see no benefit to forcing two days of discussion on something as simple as a protection request. It's a simple administrative decision. If it is being applied wrongly it can always be contested or reversed later, indeed RFPP already has a section for just that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think doing it in phases would make the rollout more chaotic than it need be, and I don't see how it would alleviate the concerns you mentioned. (Postpone them, yes; alleviate them, no.) If we were to do a phased rollout, the intervals would need to be much longer; thirty or even sixty days is insufficient time to figure out how it's working and agree upon what, if any, tweaks are needed. No way would there be time for meaningful, extended discussion in that timeframe, although there'd be ample time for big, ugly disputes to arise.
I think your Removal of Permission section has a lot going for it. One clarification, if you wouldn't mind: what exactly do you mean by a reviewer "committing obvious vandalism"—approving obviously vandalistic edits or initiating similar edits himself/herself? Either way, it occurs to me that the permission might need to be removed unilaterally on an emergency basis if, for instance, the reviewer (let's say they're under the influence) or purported reviewer (someone accessing a compromised account) is blanket-approving or disapproving every pending edit that pops up. Rivertorch (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think it should only apply where the reviewer is approving vandalism so obvious that we simply cannot assume the reviewer is acting in good faith, and is therefor using the permission to vandalize by making the approvals. If it was clear someone was blanket approving every pending edit as a form of vandalism, it would likewise be subject to summary removal, but it would be a hole different level from carelessly approving lots of edits at high speed with many mistakes, which should be dealt with through a process rather then summarily. As for vandalism elsewhere, generally I don't think editors should have a permission removed for conduct that doesn't involve the use of the permission. Monty845 18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- As for the roll out, the goal isn't have extensive discussion between phases 1-3, but instead to provide a chance to get reviewers and associated processes ramped up to be able to handle the load. The primary discussion would happen after phase 3, and I didn't provide any more timed phases after that, as the discussion could take awhile, and what would happen afterwards would depend entirely on that discussion. Monty845 18:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- All right, but I still don't believe that incremental implementation would be helpful. With any new feature, there's going to be a period during which people learn how to interface with it (or avoid interfacing with it). I suspect managing the extra load will be the least of our problems, at least initially. I agree with you 100% about permissions removal, btw. Rivertorch (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- As for the roll out, the goal isn't have extensive discussion between phases 1-3, but instead to provide a chance to get reviewers and associated processes ramped up to be able to handle the load. The primary discussion would happen after phase 3, and I didn't provide any more timed phases after that, as the discussion could take awhile, and what would happen afterwards would depend entirely on that discussion. Monty845 18:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think it should only apply where the reviewer is approving vandalism so obvious that we simply cannot assume the reviewer is acting in good faith, and is therefor using the permission to vandalize by making the approvals. If it was clear someone was blanket approving every pending edit as a form of vandalism, it would likewise be subject to summary removal, but it would be a hole different level from carelessly approving lots of edits at high speed with many mistakes, which should be dealt with through a process rather then summarily. As for vandalism elsewhere, generally I don't think editors should have a permission removed for conduct that doesn't involve the use of the permission. Monty845 18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)