• The discussion section is actually a transcluded subpage. Since this is almost certainly going to be a high-traffic discussion, this seems a good way to reduce edit conflicts. The original plan was actually to have each section for endorsements to also be a subpage, with the main page fully protected to prevent anyone but the coordinating admins from screwing with it while the RFC is underway. Up to you guys if you want to leave it as is or go with some form of that idea.
  • There is a limit, albeit quite large (not sure what it is exactly) defined at Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size which means that if the template (or subpage) that you are transcluding goes over this limit, then it won't be transcluded any more - a problem that you can see at Stewards/Confirm/2012/en. You might want to bear this in mind as I imagine there is going to be a lot of discussion on this RFC - you don't want to hit the limit and then realise the issue. Hope this helps! The Helpful One 19:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The draft policy is also a transcluded subpage located at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Provisional policy. It occurs to me it should probably be protected during the RFC, but as pages are usually not preemptively protected I'll leave it to you guys whether to IAR on that or not.

• Before going live, this should certainly be added to WP:CENT, I also think a full-on sitenotice may be warranted, but again, will leave that to you guys to decide.

• Part of the reason the other RFC was shut down was the promise that this would be open soon. Not immediately, but soon, so the quicker the team is all on the same page the better.

• The shortcut WP:PCRFC currently points at the giant RFC from last year. It may be a good idea to retarget it here or to come up with another shortcut.

• And with that, I'm done. I hand this baby over to the admin coordinators. Thank you so much for volunteering to handle this, I wish I had thought of doing it this way last time, Wikipedia always works better when we work together instead of trying to go it alone. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates, subpages, and the like aren't an area of expertise for me, so I'll defer to bigger brains than mine on what's best. At a glance, Beeblebrox's proposed set of subpages, protections, etc sounds reasonable to me. A definite yes on WP:CENT, and I also think a site notice would be wise, to avoid the issue of interested users not seeing it (on an issue like this, where emotions seem to, for whatever reason, run high, it's best to cast a wide net so no one interested feels that we failed to notify them).

I think before we start, the triumvirate need to agree on some basic principles for what actions we expect to be taking while the RfC runs, so we're not tripping over each other's opinions. For instance, will we:

• Move tangential conversations from the RfC to the RfC talk?
• Strike double-votes, or ask double-voting users on their talks to remove one?
• "Police" the atmosphere of the RfC to keep personal attacks, emotional outbursts, etc to a minimum?
• Impose any restrictions on who may vote in the RfC (IPs, new editors, apparent SPAs...)?
• Other stuff?

These things are probably best hashed out now so we're all on the same page as far as our jobs. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)

I had some similar thoughts to you as I was reading the RfC - who is eligible to vote needs to be clearly defined. Discussions will be going on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment/Discussion - this is what Beeblebrox meant when he said that it is transcluded - that subpage is transcluded. The Helpful One 19:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the AN notice and would be also happy to help as a co-ordinator or a clerk - whatever suits best. The Helpful One 23:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to making it a "quadumvirate". The possibility of a deadlocked jury exists with the addition of a fourth person, but I don't expect or want the close to come down to a straight vote to begin with - four people ought to be able to reach a consensus as well as three would regarding what the RfC says. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with Thehelpfulone living up to the username in any capacity with this RfC; whatever you want to do. Definitely a WP:CENT notification, and a watchlist notice can't possibly do any harm. I'd think that removing comments from obvious socks or comments that are blatant personal attacks would be well within our remit, as would removing obviously off-topic conversations (for the latter, provided at least two of us can agree that it's disrupting the process). As to handling double-votes, I think we could simply move the second vote up to where the original one was and leave it as an addendum; that should minimize teh dramahz. Anything else anyone thinks of would be worth mentioning here, and asking the community what they want us to do might help too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no problem with THO helping out, if anything he will be my reminder of small technical details that I overlook by accident. As for the transclusions and avoiding (edit conflict), I think each endorsement should have it's own voting page, and that the discussion page should be linked, not transcended for WP:TLDR reasons. The main RfC page should be fully protected so we can coordinate things well and we don't have a random change that affects the RfC, and we should do the same with the proposed policy, but allow the proposed policy to be edited if there is a reasonable consensus during the RfC to do it. We should also encourage discussions to occur on the talkpage instead of the endorsements page, maybe by edit notice? If there are no objections tomorrow, I will implement such ideas. WP:CENT is a must, maybe a watchlist notice and a WP:AN or WP:ANI (i'm thinking AN, but ANI would stop people from saying 'we didn't know about it' because it's a very heavily stalked page). I or another RfC admin can change WP:PCRFC when it's time. Moving tangents or discussions to talkpage as I said above is the best idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights has a good idea to just move around and strike only when we need to. Excluding IPs although I can see the reason, would not really be fair. But qualifications to vote should be that the editor is not blocked or evading a block at the time of the post, otherwise strike it out. Double based IP/Account voting should be taken up at the SPI venue, and we'll go on whatever ruling is made there. As for "policing" the RfC, I would encourage the usage of {{hat}} and {{hab}} vs. {{cot}} and {{cob}} just so we don't have anyone trying to continue emotional outbursts or similar. Another note THO said on IRC was the names of the RfC admins should be in a box on the mainpage, and I tend to agree with him. Now that i've created a WP:TLDR post, and i'm probably forgetting a few things I wanted to say, I'm going to let you guys comment. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objections? or did my TL;DR really become TL;DR? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read it all the way through; nothing I can disagree with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All sounds reasonable to me too. I'm on board. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. THO has commented with me off wiki, I might give him a poke tomorrow to comment here. But tomorrow, since there are no objections I'll start rolling the ball on implementations and make any extra modifications I feel are necessary, and we can bring them back here if there could be a possible issue (but that wouldn't happen because i'm perfect ;) just kidding). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, the comment that I made to Fluffernutter about the exclusion of IPs was that the outcome of this RFC will also affect them if they are trying to edit a page that has pending changes enabled, for example. Therefore, it would not be right to exclude them from expressing their views in an RFC that would potentially affect restrict their ability to (freely) edit a page. With regards to the names of the RfC admins in a box on the main page, we should possibly put that if users would like to contact us, to do so on a particular page (perhaps this one or a subpage) so that all of us will be able to see any requests easily - instead of searching around across multiple user talk pages. Yes, DeltaQuad, you are perfect. The Helpful One 15:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is an overlap between positions 2 and 3, in that someone supporting position 2 would also support position 3, assuming insufficient consensus is achieved for the draft policy in position 2. Perhaps before the RFC is opened, a statement on how the results will be interpreted should be issued: for example, for purposes of keeping the pending changes feature available for future use, statements of support for both positions 2 and 3 will be considered in favour. Otherwise, the vote-splitting problem between those who favour the draft policy and those who do not (but still want pending changes to be used someday) may become an issue. (Another possibility is to try to establish a consensus "best draft policy" before going ahead with this RFC.) isaacl (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I designed it to be a three-way choice because the attempt to make it a black-and-white choice last time didn't work. Some people are satisfied with the status quo. They have every right to that opinion and therefore that view is represented. If I've failed to adequately express the distinction between the those two positions then some light rewording may be in order.

I don't believe there will be any way for the coordinators to state beforehand how they will perform the close. Despite the structure being employed this is still a discussion, not a vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Position 2 is really a subset of position 3, though, so it isn't a simple three-way choice. I fully appreciate why three choices were given, as many people want to see a specific policy before stating support for pending changes, and so I don't see a good way to make the choices fully independent of each other. I think that the arguments for pending changes will get split between positions 2 and 3, which may complicate weighing the relative support for dropping pending changes versus keeping it in some form, either with the proposed draft policy, or some yet-to-be-drafted policy. That's why I am proposing that some guidance be given regarding how the arguments for positions 2 will be evaluated: that arguments for position 2 will also be considered in the context of position 3 as well. isaacl (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll leave this up to the coordinators, but I have to say I disagree with the entire premise of that line of reasoning. The way things are right now, pending changes is turned on, but it is not in use and will not be in use until a policy has already been approved. Saying we will not use pending changes and it should be turned all the way off indefinitely is one option. Using the policy we already have as a basis for resuming use of the tool with the expectation that it can be altered like like any other policy as needed in the future is another. Option three is really "do nothing." It represents no change whatsoever from the current situation. They are three distinct options, the first two have effects, and the third does not. It is fundamentally different from options one and two in that regard. Perhaps the proposals should have titles or names of their own, such as "option one: turn it off, option two:use the draft policy and modify as needed, option three: status quo. Having such distilled versions of the positions expressed as titles may help prevent further misunderstandings of this nature. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the previous discussion, I suspect that there will be some who will want a policy tuned to their liking before agreeing to support pending changes, and so will opt for position 3 if the draft policy doesn't meet their desires. Thus arguments for using pending changes will be split between positions 2 and 3. Everyone who supports the use pending changes can support position 3; a subset of these persons who are satisfied with the draft policy will support position 2. I believe this should be taken into account if it should become necessary to determine an appropriate compromise consensus view: Arguments made in favour of pending changes with a specific draft policy in mind should also be considered in the context of supporting pending changes with a policy yet-to-be-determined. For example, if someone puts forth an argument in support of position 2, saying that pending changes will enable the deployment of an improved workflow for evaluating edits to topics that are more sensitive to vandalism (such as biographies), this argument should also be considered for the case where the usage policy might not be the one specified in position 2, but will be determined in more detail later. isaacl (talk) 07:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues are not clear (at least to me) from the RFC page and presumably need to be discussed before the RFC goes live. Also, as I advocated elsewhere, a short summary of the previous RFC (what users generally see as positive and as negative) would help to minimize repeating the same arguments all over again. However, my points below are not about this.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Who can establish level of protection and protect the articles? Administrators only?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If a reviewer rejects changes, is it just a rollback, meaning there is no confirmation as in undo and the edit description is "reverted smth"? Or is it an undo, with the edit description which is supposed to explain what was wrong in the reverted edits? Can edits from different users be summarily reverted?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If it is a rollback, do we need actually two different flags for a rollbacker and a reviewer? May be just existing rollbackers become reviewers? If they do not like PRs, they may decide not to review anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a record of changes accepted somewhere? For instance, an article is ordinary, and then because of some problems it gets moved to the protection level 1 (PL1). Is it then automatically clean at the moment when it is moved, and only later changes need revision? If it gets moved back and forth, what happens? This sounds like a minor technical issue, but actually it might be very much important is flagged revisions are introduced at some stage - then the version which was accepted can be marked automatically as flagged.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all your questions are already answered int eh "background" section. In order to make the RFC less cluttered that section is collapsed, you need to click the "show" button on the green bar in that section to see alll the background material, which explains how PC works and contains numerous links to past discussions and other relevant pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I obviously uncollapsed and read the green sections before posting this message. I checked some of the links and could not find answer to these questions. I do not think it is fair to say "hey, they are described somewhere, please check the previous RFC which is btw seven hundred thirty six screens long, and the answers should be there", and besides it is an efficient way to push people to vote against pending changes. The answers should be either on the RFC page (in collapsed sections), or on the dedicated FAQ page with a clearly visible link (may be the FAQ page exists but at least the link to it is not obvious), or it should be an invitation to request the details on the talk page, with someone volunteering to answer these questions. If this does not happen, people would start assuming the worst and to share their (mis)interpretations in the RFC.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I realized my reply may sound harsh (and I hope it obvious English is not my mothertongue). I did not intend to sound harsh and as a matter of fact I am a supporter of pending changes, however, I am afraid that the RFC has a chance to be derailed again because of the issues which are actually not a part of it and are secondary to the main question. This is why I think it is important to prepare it in such a way that these issues have less chance to be raised.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your questions suggested you were entirely unfamiliar with the background, so I was just trying to point you to the relevant information to answer your questions. I really think your questions are answered either in that section, in the draft policy itself, or at Wikipedia:Pending changes, reading the previous RFC should not be needed to answer any of the queries you posted here, but here are some answers for you anyway:

• As with all other forms of protection, PC may only be added to a page by an administrator and is subject to the protection policy.
• The only flag needed at PC level one is autoconfirmed. PC level two requires the reviewer flag, although it entails a similar level of trust to rollback and users who have one are generally presumed competent to have the other. The differing protection levels, what they mean, and how they work are explained clearly in the large multicolored table in the background section.
• The pending changes log, linked in the box of PC related links at the top of the background section, logs all PC protection actions. Additionally, the links at the bottom of the background section lead to a page (blank at the moment as the tool is out of service) that would display all currently pending edits, and another page showing all articles with PC applied to them. Actual edits and their acceptance/rejection are displayed in page histories like any other edits. Adding PC does not automatically "clean" the article, it is another kind of protection, it prevents certain edits, it doesn't edit the article itself.
• I'm not sure what all the talk about "moving" is meant to be asking. Generally if a page is moved while protected, the protection settings move with it.

I hope this helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers, though my point was not so much that I need them now (for the record, I have three years experience with flagged revisions), but that other users would ask them at the RFC or assume smth which is not in the policy and will vote with this preconception. If I could not find the answers written down easily, I guess others also will not able to find them. Concerning moving a page, my question was not about moving a page from name A to name B, but from setting a protection and then lifting it again. But anyway, this is not so much important at this point, let us just see whether this issue would surface out at the RFC.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that because of my intimate familiarity with these issues I have not made the links obvious/clear enough, I'm sure the coordinators can rectify that if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After such a contentious debate we need to seek consensus, and that means trying to understand and accommodate each others concerns. It would be wrong to rule out compromise options at this stage, so I've proposed one. My own view is very much in favour of simply implementing flagged reviews as works on DE wiki and elsewhere, however I'm aware that there are others with deep concern about the idea of edits not going live. hence my proffered compromise. Obviously given past experience we can't expect the Foundation to change software to accommodate our concerns unless we first get consensus for that software. But that just means we need to agree the design before things are developed, it does not preclude software changes to implement things that we can agree on. ϢereSpielChequers 14:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would note for the record that I deliberately did not include such a position when designing this process because it has been rejected by the community in past discussions. The data from the last RFC shows that out of all the 100+ participants in phase two, only four users supported such a position. In fact it tied for fourth least supported position. Phase two is also a perfect example of how having too many options leads to a situation without usable results. If we are going to arrive at an actionable result, we need to keep this as simple as possible. If we start letting every alternate proposal that three or four users agree with get added to it, we will have failed before we have even begun. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Beeblebrox here, we have to keep it short and tight nit otherwise it's just going to be all over the place again. Three options do make users to choose between options, but if were going to get anything going, we have to leave it at three options. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with both Beeblebrox and DeltaQuad, I believe the least supported position that Beeblebrox was referring to is that which is stated here on the RFC page of last year (which had far too many options to choose from - hence why there was no clear consensus). The Helpful One 01:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knew I forgot something before clicking save, it was that link :P -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would anticipate that this particular option would be very few people's first choice. But more importantly very few would actually object to it, as it doesn't contain the features of pending changes that were commonly objected to. The option thehelpfulone links to above is very different to option 4 and I'd agree that should not be revived. If we are going to reopen the subject of pending changes then to my mind we need to try and move the subject away from the features and options that large minorities object to, and instead see if we can find compromises that we can all live with. Option 4 might not be the best the community can come up with, but if we are to seek consensus one way to do so is to have people propose compromises that achieve part of what they want whilst resolving other people's concerns. Perhaps option 5 or 6 might be the answer that we can almost all accept. Options 1-3 just revive the old battle - to achieve consensus we need to move beyond them. ϢereSpielChequers 02:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In actuality we haven't had this "battle" yet. No decision has ever been made as to whether PC should be permanently deployed here. This process was carefully designed to address 'that question only, although the option to keep the status quo is included. We can't let this thing descend into another mythical beast of a discussion, where every time one person doesn't like one particular option we just create a new position to be endorsed and then someone doesn't like that and they create another, and so forth until there are forty proposals and no possibility of a consensus. If we are going to start adding every possible permutation we might as well quit now. Ground rules were established before beginning this time because the lack of any controls is what made the last discussion such a disaster. If you want to propose something else that is another discussion for another RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may raise this proposal as a separate RFC, but it does seem a shame to me if people are trying to constrain the debate. Consensus should not be about giving people an artificially constrained set of choices and ruling out the possibility of consensus solutions emerging from the discussion. ϢereSpielChequers 22:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall if you were one of the participants in Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011, but failure to have controls in place before beginning is what caused it to fail to achieve its primary objective. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a case of postponing discussion on other options. As I understand it, Beeblebrox would like to establish a consensus first that moving ahead with pending changes is desired. Once this is done, the discussion can proceed with more elaborate possibilities, without the spectre of a lack of consensus for pending changes overshadowing the debate. isaacl (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, said, that is exactly the intention. And of course there is the issue that the WMF has made it clear they will not expend any more resources on PC until we do have a consensus on its use. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why we need proposals such as my proposal for pending changes without branding edits as "not yet accepted". The Community won't agree to implement the version of ending changes that was trialled, the WMF won't make changes unless we have consensus for those changes, so if we want to revive the idea of pending changes we need to discuss options that achieve at least some of the benefits of pending changes without some of the perceived disadvantages. The flipside of the WMF being unwilling to make changes before we get consensus to implement them is that we can reasonably assume that if we do get consensus for a compromise form of pending changes the WMF would then do the development needed for that compromise to happen. ϢereSpielChequers 18:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we waiting for something in particular? There's been no action here in over a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for poking. I've been meaning to poke the rest of the RfC admins, I got one or two on IRC today, but afaik were about ready to start...unless i'm forgetting something which is very possible at this hour and in my state. Anyone else have any objections before we start moving this thing? or last minute ideas? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not responding earlier; I've been busy whacking people in Indian caste articles and cleaning up after the kana vandal made yet another couple of raids. I'm set and ready to go; I think we have things nailed down about as well as we can for now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left a note for Fluffernutter; hopefully we'll hear from her soon. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw these posts a few days ago and it just sort of fluttered out of my mind since then that responding would be, you know, a useful thing to do! I plead rl stress :/ Anyway, I'm prepared for the RfC to open if all us admins think it's ready, but I don't know that the actual responsibility of opening it should fall to us rather than to the initiator of the RfC once we're agreed that it's ready to go. So basically I'm ready to see it launch, but I'd rather Beeblebrox or someone else be the driving force behind actually hitting the big red "GO" button. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that if needed, but then I really am done, except to add my endorsements in the rfc itself. I've just asked for a sitenotice [1] which hopefully wil get the green light soon and we can begin. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that this issue is not deemed important enough for a sitenotice, now requested as a watchlist notice [2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Watchlist notice is on, RFC is open! Here we go! Thanks again to the volunteer coordinators! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Changes is extensively used on the MediaWiki wiki as well, not just enwiki.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reason this was set up this way, but people who are used to watchlisting pages like ANI are probably going to get cranky. It might be too much information to include on the page, but is it worth noting somewhere on the page that people can't watchlist Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012, they'll need to watchlist all 3 subpages? Or do we assume people will figure that out for themselves eventually? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran into this same frustration - and I'm one of the quadrumvirate who agreed to use this setup in the first place! I'll add some information to the top of the RfC about watchlisting. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with something I quickly drafted up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please change {{imbox|text='''To add your endorsement, you must edit the section it is in, editing of the main RFC page has been disabled'''}} to {{imbox|text='''To add your endorsement, you must edit the section it is in; editing of the main RFC page has been disabled.'''}} →Στc. 03:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, although the grammar of our notices is probably the least important thing here to fret about... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As much as this has already been discussed, I guess that this RFC just goes to show that if you're dogged enough and remain focused enough that you can beat through whatever changes you want into Wikipedia. The whole "just keep asking until you get the answer you want" approach really does work, doesn't it?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking where everybody was (note, back in 2005) when semi-protection was implemented, because I hear the similar comments flashed here as then for when semi-protection was proposed as an alternative to plain full-protection of everything (i.e. opponents of that claimed that semi-protection was similarly "un-wiki" and against the "editing principles"). --MuZemike 07:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]