Wikipedia talk:Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Certes in topic User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll
Come on... edit
How can anyone say this doesn't violate WP:POINT? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- ...So, it's unacceptable to oppose Flagged Revisions on the original petition, and it's unacceptable to have a separate petition to oppose Flagged Revisions? You simply think it's unacceptable to oppose Flagged Revisions - be honest about this - but the person who started this petition happens not to agree with you, that's all. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's hardly disruptive. I disagree with it, and I think anyone who opposes FR for BLPs is nuts. :) But it's not harming anybody. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- It just seemed to me that people trying to turn a petition into a poll, and then going and putting this up....eh I dunno. I guess it's not disruptive, it just seemed a bit knee-jerk to make this. I mean, it's essentially saying "don't do what you're already not doing" or something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, I felt that with the considerable number of people who opposed FR in the first place, on the !poll which took place earlier this year, simply having a Petition requesting it's implementation was not balanced, so I initiated a petition requesting the opposite, due to the issue I stated at the top. Should it get implemented as a trial, who makes the final judgement on its suitability? The reviewers, Jimbo or someone else? It is a point which need clarification, and until that can be done, I simply don't feel that there shouldn't be some way in the basic sense, for people to say "No", when all other attempts to say no have already been ignored :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- It just seemed to me that people trying to turn a petition into a poll, and then going and putting this up....eh I dunno. I guess it's not disruptive, it just seemed a bit knee-jerk to make this. I mean, it's essentially saying "don't do what you're already not doing" or something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
As the creator of the positive petition, can I state I've no problems with this one. Obviously, I disagree. But the correct response to a petition you don't agree with is to decline to sign it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood the original petition... edit
It's already been decided through community consensus that Flagged Revisions will be rolled out. The original petition is actually demanding that the developers enable it more quickly, not that they be approved for use on the English Wikipedia. Just putting it out there. :) (X! · talk) · @771 · 17:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have misunderstood NOTHING. The petition set up here asks for it NOT to be enabled, because of the issue I stated. There is no point implementing something unless there is a clear cut decision on WHO will be judging the final suitability for a full rollout. We demand that it is not implemented until that decision is made public on the Wiki, and discussed. Or is this going to be another case of the Godking deciding on behalf of everybody? BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 18:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- The community will decide of course... --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is that so ? as I understand it, there is an aggressive Lobbying going on in the chapters which are supposed to represent the community on OTRS meetings, for example de last Dutch OTRS meeting[1] where the German Wikipedia produced air on Flagged Revisions instead of proper statistics over the last 12 months. Mion (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- The community will decide of course... --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have misunderstood NOTHING. The petition set up here asks for it NOT to be enabled, because of the issue I stated. There is no point implementing something unless there is a clear cut decision on WHO will be judging the final suitability for a full rollout. We demand that it is not implemented until that decision is made public on the Wiki, and discussed. Or is this going to be another case of the Godking deciding on behalf of everybody? BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 18:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- The original 'Turn it on NOW!!!!11' petition wasn't asking for this at all, actually. Its creator had less than no clue about the actual state of play of either the FR extension, or any or all current proposals for its trial or use on en.wiki. [2] Some people rightly or wrongly interpretted that petition with this unstated additional meaning, not unsurprisingly if they were up to speed and wondering at the lack of progress with FPPR, but that's neither here nor there to be honest. The original petition is and always was a meaningless farce. MickMacNee (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- With respect, you are giving me too much credit. My intentions/knowledge is neither here not there. People didn't sign this because they thought "Scott's got it right", they signed it because they agreed with the wording. My reasons for signing are no more pertinent than anyone else's. If they viewed it as a "farce" they would surely not have signed it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- "they signed it because they agreed with the wording" I think we've already more than covered how this is utter rubbish and how most people will have thought you meant FPPR, especially by mis-quoting Jimbo, but if you really insist - lets examine your actual petition statement.
- "We, the undersigned, demand that Flagged revisions are rolled out without further delay"
- Now, that statement linked to a meta extension that requires no rolling out. It can be switched on for local wikis, but by established fact it cannot in a million years be switched on for en.wiki with just the support of just a roll of signatures and no accompanying proposal. Not only did you not link to any proposal, you didn't even bother linking to the top level Wikipedia page on the subject. It is therefore an utter piss take to claim the statement on its own, and hence any signatures to it, means anything at all, apart from at best, how easy it is to mislead people when you don't make it clear what you want people to sign up to and they assume you know all the facts (the most plausible reason for signatories), and at worst, how clueless all the signatories were if they were simply agreeing with a clueless statement on its own and had made no other assumptions at all (less likely, but its what you seem to want to claim has happened). MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I assume people can read a statement and decide whether to sign it for themselves. You see to assume that either a) you know they meant or didn't mean b) they are stupid c) I "duped them". This is silly. I wrote something, which may not have had a particularly clear scope or meaning, and people (for varieties of reasons, of which I can only guess) decided to sign it. There really is nothing else here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Now, that statement linked to a meta extension that requires no rolling out. It can be switched on for local wikis, but by established fact it cannot in a million years be switched on for en.wiki with just the support of just a roll of signatures and no accompanying proposal. Not only did you not link to any proposal, you didn't even bother linking to the top level Wikipedia page on the subject. It is therefore an utter piss take to claim the statement on its own, and hence any signatures to it, means anything at all, apart from at best, how easy it is to mislead people when you don't make it clear what you want people to sign up to and they assume you know all the facts (the most plausible reason for signatories), and at worst, how clueless all the signatories were if they were simply agreeing with a clueless statement on its own and had made no other assumptions at all (less likely, but its what you seem to want to claim has happened). MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I think we may have found a compromise edit
Please see Doc Glasgow's Limited Flagging Proposal - the link is also going on the Petition page. I'm against most forms of FR, and even I could support this :) BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 20:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Signatories may be interested in User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll, a proposal to turn on flagged revisions in the German style. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this means applying FR to all articles next week. It currently has a large percentage support from a small audience. Certes (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)