What do you think of this new proposal for Hold Requests? [closed]

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

A few months ago we discussed ideas for a {{Hold Request}} Research Note Box (RNB).

From the discussion it emerged that the arbitrary limits we suggested would not work for "Orphan Trail" learning programs.

We've revised the proposed limits and enhanced the proposed RNB so it automatically categorizes profiles, something suggested by Brad Foley, Troy Phillips and others in the previous discussion.

Please see Help:Hold_Requests and reply here if you have suggested changes or objections to the proposal. Orphan Trail leaders, especially, please see the proposed limits and make sure they would work for your program.

Please post an answer instead of a comment if you want your suggestions to be seen by others. Comments at the top will be hidden after they are read once.

Thanks!

Chris and the WikiTree Team

Answer 1

I still think it goes against the idea of a wiki to even have a Hold Request process, but the limits seem reasonable, and I like the categorization which will help projects and individuals find profiles they have placed a hold upon.

Answer 2

In my opinion, this is a very workable compromise from a Project perspective.  I'm no longer hands-on with the Scotland or Canada learning programs like I had been, so I'll defer to Brad (Canada Project Trail PC) and JacquiB (Scotland Project Trail Leader Contact/former PC) for input there.

Thank you for working on this and taking the feedback from the previous discussion into consideration.  I support this proposal.

Answer 3

The proposal would work for the Scotland Project's Tartan Trail. 250 profiles would be enough for us to work with and six months seems a reasonable time.

I would support this.

Answer 4

I like the limit on number for individuals and the time limit (though it can be renewed indefinitely, those who aren't really going to do something will let that expire, in my opinion).  I would not like to see holds used in the way that some profiles say sources will be added by xx person by yy time.  Still there years later.

Comments

Aleš has added a neat little feature to automatically hide the template if the time elapses on the request. So the template might exist on the profile, but it will not be displayed after the hold has expired.  There will also be suggestions that can be generated based on overdue hold requests, etc.

---

Good idea, thanks for adding that information, Steven.

---

A suggestion for overdue hold requests would be great

---

How can we delete an out-of-time template if we can't see it ?   Why have an invisible template at all ?

---

The template will not be visible when the profile is viewed, but it will still be present and removable on the edit tab.

---

So you have to go into edit mode on a profile which has been held to prevent editing ( but time elapsed ) ?  I love the logic of having to go into edit mode to see a template which says "please do not edit ".....  What a neat little feature !   What happens when an editor sees the out-of-date template ? Do they edit the profile and leave it - or edit the profile and also delete the template ?

---

 I love the logic of having to go into edit mode to see a template which says "please do not edit ".....  What a neat little feature !   

I place a {{Hold Request}} on a profile with an ending date of 9 Jun 2023 - I expect to have my research and edits completed by then. For some reason or another, I lost track of that profile and forgot to get back to it.

Now we are in December of 2023. This profile is no longer "on hold" per the policy since the time has expired and it was not renewed (with a new date). In this case, there is no reason to display a notice on the profile for a date that was months in the past. Anyone is free to edit that profile - so the template will automatically hide itself from the 'public view' and not try to convey any 'hold' messages.

Even thought the template exists in 'edit mode', it means nothing because, again, the date is in the past. You can make changes, remove the template (which will also show as a suggestion at the bottom of the profile like other suggestions do) and be done with it.

---

At the very least, could we please have the templates auto-delete rather than auto-conceal ? Why hide that template at all ?  As you say "there is no reason to display a notice on the profile for a date that was months in the past".  

For example, a software routine could pick out that it is out of date, and delete it. 

---

For example, a software routine could pick out that it is out of date, and delete it. 

This would have to be done a bot, causing a change to be logged for the profile. This means we have to retain that one minor change for eternity, for each profile it was done on. This is 'expensive' in the grand scheme.

There would be no need to auto-delete the template if it is hidden, and it can be removed at the same time other meaningful edits are made to the profile.

---

Then why add a suggestion to remove the template ? This, if acted upon, by say a data doctor who does no other edit, will also generate one minor change which is expensive in the grand scheme. Better to have a bot do it than use up the precious time of members.

---

There is often confusion on the different types of suggestions Data Doctors work on.

Minor suggestions (hints) are not generally sought out by members in order to clear the error - for the reasons I mentioned above.

There are probably many more suggestions (now labeled as warnings) that should fall into this range as well. For example, DBE_670 Marriage location in uppercase. Having uppercase is not preferred, but is not causing any issues - so there she be no undertaking by members to seek out and "fix" these. Anyone who is working on a profile with a DBE_670 will see the suggestion when they are editing the profile and it can be corrected at that time.

But we are getting a bit off topic here. Let's focus on the merits of the proposal.

Answer 5

I like this a lot. I think for a complicated Gedcom cleanup it would be very helpful. 

I did notice on the Help:Hold Requests page that it says an Individual may place the hold on a max of 5 open profiles "that they manage". 

Does that mean that Individuals cannot use it on someone else's profile, only the ones we are PM for? 

A lot of gedcom cleanup is done without asking, and it is not usually a long process. But if its going to take longer to complete (not the same day), I always send a courtesy email to the PM about what I am doing. I also place a Notice on the profile saying "Gedcom Cleanup In progress, please don't edit" with my name. (sounds like a hold request right) But I don't wait for permission from the PM as I may never get a response to my email. 

Comments

I think you have answered your own question:

"THAT THEY MANAGE".  It stops other people from slapping a Hold Request on one of your profiles when you didn't want it held.

---

That's a real good question, Lorraine. I think we should word something that would allow the kind of GEDCOM clean-up you do (and thank you for doing it, by the way!).

Maybe we could address Ros's point by adding something that allows Profile Managers to remove the Hold Request if they want to edit the profile. ???

---

Your right, I did. I just wanted to make sure that was the intent of the wording. I do understand that placing a hold on another PM's profile without permission is not desirable. 

I do see a good use of the Hold for Gedcom cleanups when a volunteer is doing a long complicated cleanup that will take more time, maybe multiple edits/days.  

I have seen notes on profiles asking people not to edit as a gedcom cleanup is in progress. I have also come across profiles where the note has been left behind even though the cleanup was done. I came across this sometimes because the Category for Gedcom cleanup has also been left behind 

Just my two cents worth, maybe its something that could come under the maintenance teams. I think the volunteers doing those kind of gedcom cleanups would appreciate it. 

---

See Steven Harris's comment above:

Aleš has added a neat little feature to automatically hide the template if the time elapses on the request. So the template might exist on the profile, but it will not be displayed after the hold has expired.  There will also be suggestions that can be generated based on overdue hold requests, etc.

---

Thanks Chris,

Its an interesting suggestion. But the reason I am there doing the cleanup is to help the PM who has not been able to complete it (no judging). If they are editing in the middle of the cleanup, its not usually helpful.

However I will say that even a very long cleanup should not take more than a week. Best practice would be.. Not to start a cleanup where you can't allocate enough time to complete it within that week.

A courtesy email to the PM explaining the Hold and how to communicate with the volunteer would/should be required.

One question. If I am the PM or I can get into edit mode on the profile... is their anything stopping me from simply deleting the Hold Request?

---

Also thinking that any volunteer doing a long gedcom cleanup should only be allowed one Gedcom Hold Request at a time.

It would not be good for a volunteer to have several long cleanups on the go (with holds) and then need to extend the completion times because of it.

---

I echo Lorraine's concern about the wording in the Usage Requirements section regarding the apparent restriction that individuals can only add the template to profiles they manage.

If that restriction is intended to exist, I feel it should be stated clearly elsewhere on the page before it is stated in the Usage Requirements section. This single mention of a restriction for individuals seems more of an implication, rather than a stated policy.

With the current wording on the page, I do not know whether or not that restriction exists as part of the proposed policy.

---

It seems to me there is a difference between placing a hold request on a managed profile which has not been edited for years and where the profile manager is no longer active (which may be the case with many of the GEDCOM cleanups Lorraine works on), and doing so with a profile managed by someone else who is currently active and has worked on the profile thoroughly. In the latter case, communicating with the manager through the usual channels would be appropriate, not a hold request.

Lindy's suggestion of expanding the advice on this subject is a good idea. When this is done, it would be useful if the two different cases I've just described could be distinguished, and given different guidelines.

---

I see at least 3 different cases, Jim:

1. a profile I manage (could be broken into 2 cases: profiles I manage solely and profiles I manage jointly)
2. a profile someone else (including projects) manages
3. an unmanaged profile

I may or may not want to adopt the unmanaged profile, but I wouldn't expect to place my hold request on a profile managed by another member, unless that practice is included in the intent of this proposed policy.

The proposed policy, as currently stated, seems to imply placing the template on profiles managed by others/unmanaged profiles at one point, while implying a restriction to one's own managed profiles elsewhere.

We need to clarify whether just one of these practices or if both of them is the intent of this proposed policy.

edit: fixed typo - italicized text

---

Where does it say about putting the template on others' profiles?  As far as I can see, you can have 5 Hold Requests (if you are an individual) on profiles THAT YOU MANAGE.

---

I don't believe that being allowed to add the Hold Request template to profiles managed by our fellow WikiTreers is stated anywhere in the proposal, Ros, but I feel that one could infer that possibility from the wording, as well as from the title of the template.

One could ask "why would we need to Request a Hold from ourselves?"

The issue, as I see it, is a matter of clarity of the policy: what exactly is and is not permitted by this policy should be stated clearly upfront and as thoroughly as possible.

---

I removed the mention of profile managers.

I don't think managers need any special privileges, e.g. to be allowed to delete hold requests without communication. They're just hold requests. Communicating with the person who placed it isn't a terrible burden. If the person who placed it doesn't need communication from the manager, they can explain that in the Research Notes section.

Answer 6

Like Amy, I'm deferring to Brad and Jacqueline for the Canada and Scotland Trails, respectively. For myself, I think this a workable compromise.

Answer 7

This is a bad idea. Any "open profile" is subject to editing for the benefit of Wikitree.

It's not even applicable to different privacy settings unless there is more than one profile manager.

Wikitree users need to acclimate themselves to the fact that they do not own mandatory open profiles over 150 years old and they must work collaboratively (because that's what crowd-sourcing is all about). Everyone's contributions are respected, but their contributions are also subject to editing.

To discourage abuse, I would go even further and only allow one hold per profile in perpetuity. Once the hold counter hits 1, no more holds are allowed.

Comments

I agree with the basic premise that Judi stated. Any open profile is subject to editing. It's a collaborative platform. All contributions are subject to edit.

---

I agree with Judi and Eric in principle, but with qualifications:

• If someone is in the middle of a complicated edit, it is reasonable to place a hold to discourage someone else from jumping in before the first person is finished. This should be short term. The proposed one week should be adequate; allowing indefinite renewal for that does not seem fair.
• The needs of learning programs to have profiles in reserve for trainees to work on should be supported. On the other hand, I haven't yet seen an argument why non-training projects should have greater privileges on hold requests than individuals do.

---

Many of the reasons that projects requested an extended time period on "exclusivity" were discussed in the previous version of this proposal linked here. This current version is a compromise to allow more flexibility projects, as well as individuals, for the various reasons brought up in the last discussion. I think you'll find some good debate in the previous coversation. 

---

It was a huge thread, Bobbie :-) I did recall the arguments for learning programs such as Trails to hold profiles ready for their trainees, and I've supported that above. I've just skimmed through the first very long page of that thread (of two), and it is almost entirely focused on trails. The only other activity I noticed mentioned several times was the WikiTree Challenge, for which Kathy said that profiles are held for 1-2 weeks, not a month.

Would you like to summarise some of the arguments in favour of project activities other than training to put holds on profiles for as long as a month?

---

Jim,

It is quite common to have profiles get conflated because of quick attachment of parents or spouse because a name matches, without checking for dates or locations or anything else, like Sources!!  This happens at all times, but it can be a serious problem to deconstruct profile families in the Pre-1700 and Pre-1500 timeframe.  Frequently, that takes more than a day or a week and it involves multiple profiles.

Scotland Project has many profile families being worked on at any given time. As some have already said, it can be frustrating if a lot of time has been spent on researching a family, 'starting' to update multiple profiles in the family with the sources, only to return the next day to find that someone has changed things again, with no sources, or no reliable sources, and removed the reliable sources.

---

Jim, 

You asked, "Would you like to summarise some of the arguments in favour of project activities other than training to put holds on profiles for as long as a month?"

Actually, no, since that would be my interpretation of other members' words. Chris has already taken that full conversation into account and the results are in this new proposal.
I think it is an excellent way to handle the educational programs (Trails), and the profiles in their 'stable' are generally abandoned, undeveloped and unloved ones that have been ignored for years. Seldom has there been much conflict on these profiles previously. This proposal simply makes it easier for the Trails to proceed without disruption. If a member really desires to update one of them, reaching out to the appropriate project would most likely be met with a positive response if it hasn't already been started on by a Trail member. 

---

Judy,

Most of the 'learning' projects spend quite a bit of time to find profiles that the 'hikers' can use. Most of those projects try to find profiles that the 'hikers' will be able to easily find reliable sources for, so they they can 'learn' how to use wikitree, 'learn' how to research, and then 'document' their research into the profiles.  The purpose of the 'learning' is not to get people frustrated with the 'learning' process, so it is better to have profiles that they know have sources. Once they have identified some profiles and they put the 'image' or whatever on the profile, hopefully people don't edit them.  

If you or anyone comes across a profile and they are part of the family and / or they have found many sources, all you have to do is ask the project if you can update the profile and they will 'probably' remove the 'hiker hold' from the profile. This was stated in the previous discussion by multiple people and projects.

If there were a limited number of profiles on wikitree that needed sources and / or dates and / or locations, then yes, I could understand people saying that no profiles should be held, but there are thousands of profiles that are unsourced, undated, unconnected.  I suspect that most of them, based on the work that I normally do, do NOT have the Unsourced template / category on them, so they are not included in the counts of unsourced profiles.  There are many profiles that were loaded with gedcoms with no dates and no sources before standards were changed, Therefore, there are plenty of profiles for people to be updating, excluding the less than a thousand 'total needed by all learning projects'.

---

I agree about Trails, and accept up to 250 profiles being held for 6 months by a learning program for that purpose.

So far I do not see why the proposed limits say "Projects may set end dates up to one month away." If reasonable arguments are presented here I will certainly reconsider, but in their absence I think that sentence should be removed, and for non-training purposes projects should be limited to one-week holds, the same as individuals.

As previously stated, I do not think that hold requests should be renewable once the original time has expired (with the exception of ones for Trails). Renewability defeats the whole idea of time limits.

---

I had missed Linda's Scotland Project example when making my last comment. But I do not see why a hold is necessary while research is being done. The project can work out what the correct position is, without concern for mistakes at present on the profile or what someone may change in the meantime. The results of this research can progressively be documented privately by the project member or members involved. The profile can then be edited to reflect the outcome; in fact that could be done in a single edit if the material were prepared in advance, but for a complicated change a hold of one week (as allowed for individuals) would not be excessive.

If someone changes the profile in the meantime and their change is wrong, it doesn't matter: what was on the profile is available through its history, and the new incorrect change can be overwritten along with the earlier errors when the profile is edited. But if the intervening change is correct, or raises questions that the project's research has not considered, it should of course be incorporated. Members should not be prevented by holds from adding material or making changes which may be valuable, or if wrong are (as the Honor Code recognises) not intentional.

---

One could also collaborate with the project, Jim. All projects look for willing volunteers to help with updates. Be part of the team and help get the work done.

---

We've had that discussion before, Bobbie. My position is unchanged. Any member who has signed the Honor Code can edit Open profiles. Projects do not own profiles any more than individual profile managers do. Improving profiles is collaboration. It is contrary to the wiki idea to impose restrictions on this, whether in the form of long hold requests, or requirement or pressure for project membership.

Answer 8

I'm having trouble thinking of an example where I have saved my edits before I'm "finished", but would not want to allow someone else to contribute. I sometimes go beyond the Draft exclusivity period during long or complex edits, but not by days.

Perhaps for many of these use cases, we actually need better edit conflict tools, not blocks? For example I save and go to bed, someone else edits in "my overnight" and I don't reload before starting a new edit on a now out-of-date copy of the profile. We might also need to provide better guidance for what to do if an uncommitted draft created by someone else (30 minutes to 7 days) is found. On the time or two I've found that, I looked at the uncommitted changes , and if they looked good, saved with a comment that I had found the draft and who created it, before making my own edits (if they weren't already in that draft).

Answer 9

Looks good, thank y’all! I’m answering on behalf of the US Black Heritage Path program. We especially like the categories and suggestions, as Steven and Emma mentioned above.

Answer 10

My main concern is with how this would impact the trail programs and this proposal should be more than adequate for our needs.

Answer 11

I favor this new proposed policy because it standardizes how we communicate regarding an individual or project's desire to work on a profile without interruption or distraction.

While I don't know if this policy will attain the desired results, I feel we should establish an initial policy for hold requests. As we move forward, we can tweak the policy as needed, or scrap it if it creates more problems than it solves.

Having a standardized policy gives us a base for resolving problems, just as other guidelines do.

Answer 12

Thank you for redrafting this proposal to make it more workable for the Trail teams. Much appreciated.

It will cause some additional admin for our team but we have worked through the changes required to make it work and will manage it.

Thanks again,

England Project Leaders, Orphan Trail Leadership Team and Trailblazers.

Answer 13

Question: Will Hold Requests inhibit other members from adding or removing relatives for the held profile?

We don't usually think of adding or removing relatives as "editing" the profile: "editing" generally means opening the edit tab, making a change, and saving. So as the text on the Help page

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Hold_Requests

is currently formulated, it may not prevent or discourage such connection changes.

Comments

I don't think anything about this proposal stops anyone working on profiles related to those who have a Hold Request template.

---

Is that intended when a Trail puts a hold on though? Good question Jim

---

From an England Project Orphan  Trail point of view the Hold Request would only ever relate to the profile with the template on it.  Not any profiles surrounding it. That, I believe, is the intention of the template.  But of course others may have a different view.

Answer 14

I encountered a weird bug when trying to use the new  {{Hold Request ...}} template, but it only occurs occasionally.

Yesterday I added a Hold to a Space page, and proceeded to work on it. Then I noticed something odd, the "Page Name:" field had my name in it and the page was not showing up with my name instead of the Space Page name.  

I thought that maybe I had misunderstood the parameters, so I changed the id= and name= values to those of the Space Page. That was not the solution.

Today, I tried again, with a different Space Page, and it did it again, and this time I noticed that it had also changed the page dates. So I quit that editing session and tried again, and again. The 2nd and subsequent attempts to place a Hold did not result in the odd behaviour noted above.

I have no idea why this would happen sometimes and not others, but I thought somebody would want to know.

Comments

BTW, I noticed that the date field only accepts two date formats as input. It does accept ISO-8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, but it does not accept DD Mon YYYY, which I is what I almost always use. I found that to be a minor annoyance.

---

This template is not approved for use.

---

Well then, maybe I found another bug. If I am not supposed to use that Template, maybe it should not have been among the choices offered to me in the Template Finder, and maybe the Template Editor should have warned me.

---

While Melanie is right that the template is not yet approved, perhaps it's helpful that Murray has inadvertently pioneered it and discovered some issues to be remedied. The examples at Template:Hold Request all use the date format DD Mon YYYY, which must therefore be intended to be available.

---

There is a big yellow banner warning to not use this template yet.
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Hold_Request

This template is still under development and should not be used on any profiles. Please contact Project:Templates for more information.

---

But Murray would not have seen that, because he was using the Template Finder and Template Editor which are part of the WBE WikiTree+ Edit Helper.

---

Murray found this thread ok, where it says quite clearly it is a proposal.

Perhaps the WBE needs to be disabled for unapproved "suggestions".

---

As he already said. But a draft template like this one is a rare occurrence, not worth adding complicated extra code to WBE for, and no harm has been done.

---

Melanie,

If your intention is to scold me, you are way off the mark.

Honestly, I didn't read this entire thread. I learned about Hold Request and I thought that I should try it for a page that I was working on all day and didn't want anybody else to edit.

I never saw the big yellow banner because it is so far down the page. I did look at the top of the Template: page using Preview, but never noticed a banner. You should consider placing it higher up.

I used the WikiTree+ Edit Helper's Template Finder and Template Editor to select the template and enter its values. It did not try to prevent me from using it.

I should note that I did mention to Aleš recently that I had noticed that I seem to have access to a lot of templates that I don't even know how to use, like EDITbot templates. I do think that access to some templates should be restricted, perhaps controlled by a badge-level authorization.

I am a technical writer, tester, and quality assurance agent for the WikiTree Browser Extension team. It's my job to try the software and document how it works. Sometimes that means that I use the software in ways that weren't anticipated by the implementors. When things don't work out the way everybody expected, I report on it, which is what I did here.

Don't get stuck on the yellow banner. Take notice of the problems that I highlighted.

(Edited to correct addressee: was Paul, is Melanie.

---

Murray, I wonder if the peculiar behaviour with the template fields you observed and/or the limitation on the date format may not be issues with the template itself, but either with the WBE Template Editor, or because of some interaction between the Editor and this particular template with its unusual properties.

It would not be good for everyone to start using the Hold Request template now, but it might be an idea if a few people who are keen to use it are permitted to beta test it, in case this Developing New Rules process ends up being successful.

---

Jim,

I wonder too. That's why I posted to G2G. I also notified Aleš.

It might be an idea for there to be a QA team on WikiTree, and a team of testers, and a documentation team. These functions are all being performed on an ad hoc basis now. I think that WikiTree is ready to move past the "move fast and break things" phase of its existence. Quality management has become a much needed discipline on WikiTree.

---

Yellow banner should be displayed at the top of the Template page, but Chris structured the page differently. I intended to correct that after it would be aproved. But I did it now.

Template does the date calculations to automatically hide the template after the entered date. And the I think PHP understands ISO date and d mmm yyyy one. Maybe some other ones, but I am not sure.

---

Thank you for those clarifications, Aleš. The banner is now visible in a Preview from the Template Finder.

Answer 15

C'est Bon .. administrative value added opportunity for quality-improvement  genealogy investments and leadership development .. looking forward to the initiating mechanism and experience adjusting process ..

Answer 16

One reason to approve the template is to standardize how various trails/profile improvement mark the profile. Methods in use now include an image or text before the biography. Either of these will appear as a difference from the order specified in https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Biographies.