Revision as of 16:03, 5 July 2012

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Pending Changes RfC close

Initiated by —Jeremy v^_^v at 04:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

Due to the nature of the case, there are no "parties" per se. However, listed alongside me are the administrators who ultimately closed or oversaw the closing of the RfC, as listed on the page.

• Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Fluffernutter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Thehelpfulone:
• DeltaQuad:
• Fluffernutter:
• TBotNL:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Additional dispute resolution would be singularly unhelpful due to the polarizing nature of the subject matter, thus aside from the RfC in question and the three preceding it there is no dispute resolution. In addition, as this case concerns a request for comment with significant ramifications for Misplaced Pages and there is a deadline of 11/01/2012 before discussion on the matter will approach a drawdown, dispute resolution would be ineffective and a timesink in any case.

Statement by Jéské Couriano

A couple of months ago, the fourth discussion/poll on whether to retain or reject the Pending changes extension for en.Misplaced Pages was started. This request concerns itself with its close.

On June 23, 2012, the RfC was closed by four admins, all of whom have professed neutrality with respect to whether or not PC is implemented. The close was ultimately to implement Pending Changes, but to work out its policy before it goes live, with a provisional policy as a fallback should a policy not be developed before November 1. However, since then there've been several complaints about the close - specifically, the totals. When closed, the totals were 178/308/17 (178 in favor of rejecting Pending Changes, 308 in support of keeping it with the provisional policy, and 17 in support of reworking the policy before implementing it). Even lumping Options 2 and 3 together, the end percentage in support of PC is 64.1% (Separate, Option 2 only has 61.6% support), which has been noted as being quite low for a discussion with serious consequences for en.wp and thus gives the impression the close is being used as a super-!vote. Hence this request.

I'm filing this to clarify whether or not the result is proper at 61-64% in favor and, if it isn't, what the actual consensus of the discussion is. —Jeremy v^_^v 04:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Keilana

I'm not 100% sure I'm allowed to comment here, so please remove this if it isn't appropriate. I was one of the closers for the recent Muhammad images RfC, and found that determining consensus in these matters is more difficult than meets the eye. We don't use straight votes in this community for a good reason; consensus is a far better model for determining the true level of support for a proposition. The closers were all experienced admins, who know what consensus is and how to find it in a protracted discussion like the PC RfC. We don't need more drama with PC, we need to work together to implement the solution we decided on as a community. Arbitration will not help with that admittedly difficult process. Keilana| 05:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment from The ed17

I don't think the committee should second-guess this close. What Jeremy seems to forget is that discussions on Misplaced Pages aren't governed by strength of numbers alone; the individual arguments presented from both sides also play a strong factor. The four neutral administrators who closed this RfC took the time to weigh both sides and determined that in numbers and argument, there was consensus to enable pending changes. If the committee does decide to take this on, which it might do to provide yet another "final" decision in the tortured history of pending changes, I urge them to do so by motion. Enough acrimony has come about thanks to pending changes over the last few years, and there is little need for more through a full case. Ed  06:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Yaris678

The closers stated that their decision was based on an analysis of the arguments put forward, rather than claiming that the majority was sufficient per se. I think this is reasonable in light of WP:NOTVOTE. If there is room for criticism it is that the analysis of the arguments seems partial, in both sense of the word. They seem to have picked the weaker arguments of the opposition to pending changes and ignored some of the others.

A full list of the issues raised a immediately after the trial can be found at Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Closure (pro, con and requests). Some of these cons could be argued against quite easily, others could be dealt with by an appropriate choice of policy. I would prefer to see them all addressed in some way if we are going to base the closure of this RfC on arguments.

As a side note, I did not express an opinion at Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 but I did make some comments on the talk page in the hope of finding an acceptable solution. I was involved in compiling the list at Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Closure, which may explain my bringing it up here, but if someone can identify a better list I’d be happy to see it.

• In response to the decline by PhilKnight: I think that misses what this is about. The question is not "Are we going to use Pending Changes", although arguably Arbs can get into that if they want to interpret their role broadly. The question is "Was the RfC closed correctly?" This is not an issue of policy or content. It is an issue conduct in that it is about what the closers did. Yaris678 (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Seraphimblade

I'm of two minds on this issue. Except for DQ, who I don't really know one way or the other, I have a very high regard for those admins who closed this thing, and so I hope they will not take it too badly that I have serious questions about their judgment in this case. I have a lot of concerns about the close, and while I'll disclose that I opposed continuing PC, I don't think it's just sour grapes—I've closed more than one tough discussion, and while I know you can't please everyone, you also have to make every effort to maintain neutrality and propriety, both in appearance and in fact. I'll try to be concise, but at least some of you know that's not exactly my strong point. Please bear with me.

• The numbers are of concern. While we do operate on the principle of "discussion, not a vote," this RfC wasn't really set up that way anyway, since it forbade editors from adding new sections with nuanced opinions or for additional discussion. As such, it was very similar to an RfA, and its numeric threshold was at the point (low 60% support) where an RfA would essentially automatically fail. Given that this is a far more substantial change than making a single user an admin, it should seem it should require at minimum the same proportional level of support, and likely more.
• A very popular option at previous discussions, that PC must be improved before we would consider using it, was excluded (explicitly) from the discussion. The rationale was: "The option of the tool itself (as opposed to the policy on its use) being improved or altered before considering re-deployment is deliberately absent from the positions. Pending changes is a specialized version of the more restrictive "flagged revision" system. It was developed by the Wikimedia Foundation specifically to be used on en.Misplaced Pages and is not used on other projects. For that reason the Foundation made it clear that it would not expend any more resources to develop pending changes until this project had determined that they would actually use it. Therefore the option of improving it first before deciding is not viable at this time." (links omitted). This is a flawed rationale—since Pending Changes, as a part of Mediawiki, is open source software, anyone could have volunteered to do improvements the community required before use. WMF's involvement would not have been necessary at all to improve the software. This is likely to have suppressed a significant number of those who previously expressed the opinion that PC must be improved before use, only to come to the discussion and find their option not only absent, but a header forbidding its addition.
• The user who designed the RfC, Beeblebrox, also clearly supported PC: . Given how rigid the structure of the RfC was, and that others were prohibited from adding new sections (especially the very popular "Improve first" position), it is quite inappropriate that someone with a strong view on the discussion decided on the rigid structure. If the RfC must be rigidly structured, it should have been drafted by someone neutral on the subject. This gave Beeblebrox an inappropriate opportunity to channel discussion on the matter, and whether intentional or not, it would be almost impossible for someone with a strong opinion to draft a completely neutral RfC. This one wasn't, and it excluded at least one critical and popular opinion, to improve before use. That's why we generally allow everyone to add opinion sections, and don't do rigid voting/ballot type structures. We certainly should not do such when a partisan in the matter is designing the structure.
• Implementation was separated from activation. Rather than a full discussion deciding if we can come to a consensus on how to use PC, it was essentially stated that even if we cannot, it will be activated with a "draft" use policy, also drafted by Beeblebrox. This "activation even if we can't agree how" was not, to the best of my ability to find, noted as a consequence of "supporting" the RfC.
• One closer seems to have indicated that the developers were in private contact with the closing admins during the close: . Unless I'm misreading, that's utterly inappropriate. If the devs had something to say, they should have said it openly and publicly at the discussion just like anyone else. It was not appropriate, or even close, for them to be advising the closers during the close, and it was even more inappropriate if the closers considered what they had to say when deciding how to close.

There are too many flaws here to have confidence in the outcome of this discussion. I'm not sure what to recommend—starting the discussion over without all the restrictions on what may or may not be discussed, throwing the whole thing out for good since low-60's isn't near consensus for a major structural change, whacking with trouts but otherwise keeping it and moving on—I just don't know, but that's why we have an ArbCom. I think it would be beneficial for the Committee to open a case and at least take a good look at what happened with this train wreck, and it would ease a lot of people's minds. Maybe it would help us do better in the future, too. Seraphimblade 07:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rivertorch

While I have no strong opinion as to whether this falls within the province of ArbCom, I do have serious reservations about the close that don't seem to fall into anyone else's jurisdiction. Aside from the question of the numbers—and a less than two-thirds majority is problematic for green-lighting a change as far-reaching and potentially game-changing as pending changes might turn out to be—the marked lack of rigor displayed by the closers in their decision calls into question whether they exercised proper diligence in attempting to determine consensus.

Of the more than 500 editors who participated in the RfC, over 85% offered a substantive comment to explain their !votes, and a sizable number engaged in further discussion. Yet in reading the closers' remarks, I was left with the distinct impression that they had completely ignored most of the arguments—strong and weak—on both sides, and still somehow come to a remarkably one-sided conclusion. Rather than make any attempt to summarize the major arguments, they selected, apparently at random, several concerns expressed by Option 1 supporters and summarized the rebuttals made to those few concerns by Option 2 supporters. Option 1 supporters did also take the time and trouble to rebut various arguments put forward by Option 2 supporters, but you'd never know it from what the closers wrote.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the closers made the right decision; in the final analysis, that is a matter of opinion. How they went about making their decision is something else entirely: that ought to be a matter of fact and a matter of record, easily discernible from the wording of their close. Anything else makes a mockery of the efforts made by the RfC's participants and sets a troubling precedent for those who close important RfCs in the future. Unfortunately, little can be discerned from what the closers have told us.

Although I am familiar enough with two of the closers to state without reservation that I believe them to be highly competent, conscientious editors whose presence on Misplaced Pages I value considerably, I cannot help thinking that their work here was slipshod and fell far short of the thorough, careful close that the community had a right to expect on such an important question. Pending changes is undoubtedly one of the most controversial issues ever considered by the community, and there can be little doubt that closing the latest RfC on it had to be a thankless job. All four closers took the task on willingly, and presumably with their eyes wide open. It was incumbent upon them to be meticulous and thorough, and to document that they were so. In that, they failed utterly, and that failure cannot help but cast a pall over whatever comes next along the road to PC implementation (or non-implemention, to keep all options open). Rivertorch (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Barts1a

People seem to be having an issue with the percentages behind this close, but they seem to be failing to look at the numbers behind the percentage which add quite a bit of validity to the closure. There is a gap of 130 people between supports and oppose. That gap alone is more people than we get participating in most RfC's from all options combined! The total number of participants was 503 or which 308 supported option 1 which is a lot of people whatever way you look at it! While the consensus is small in terms of percentage it is actually quite large in terms of raw numbers. If we judged all policy changes by percentages alone many of the original policies would still stand in their original and much less effective forms and we probably would still be using the currently redundant CSD criteria as new ones would never have been implemented! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

I do not find ArbCom has a normal purview of all closures of RfCs, hence have the opinion that this is not the place for this discussion. Unless, of course, the intent is to accuse the closers individually and collectively of misconduct warranting formal sanctions. Absent such, I doubt there is cause for this action. Collect (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

This sounds like a content (well, policy) dispute. I don't see any conduct issues here. It's therefore outside the scope of the Arbitration Committee's purview. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment by jc37

The only thing I wanted to note was that, since this case seems to be concerning a close, and specifically notes the "numbers of votes", I just wanted to remind everyone:

• consensus is not a vote, and with only one exception (noting immediately below) we do not count votes for closing, but weigh arguements.
• Discussions which grant an individual additional responsibilities (or to remove such responsibilities) which may also include one or more user-rights, are typically some hybrid of consensus and voting.

I think that this also may be a confusion in this case. While this policy/process would introduce some new responsibilities for editors; this particular discussion, afaict, does not by it give any particular individual any additional responsibilities.

So WP:NOTVOTE would clearly apply.

If arbcom wants to accept this case, so to be a form of closure review, similar to deletion review or move review, then that's obviously up to them. Though I can't recall a time in the past where they have done so. (I have no doubt, someone will remind us if such examples exist : ) - jc37 13:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Short comment from The Blade of the Northern Lights

Our rationale is up on the main RfC page. I'm not exactly sure what an arbitration case is going to accomplish, other than perhaps allowing a few people to blow off steam because they didn't like the close. As Keilana says above, a lot went into this from all sides, and we made the decision we made; what's there to arbitrate in that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/2/0)

• Recuse as a vocal supporter of pending changes. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Decline - the Arbitration Committee is primarily involved with user conduct, and doesn't stipulate content, or policy. As far as I can tell, this request concerns policy, and not user conduct, and therefore is outside the remit of the Arbitration Committee. PhilKnight (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Recuse Courcelles 14:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • @Keilana though, of course neutral parties are allowed to give their views here, if a case were accepted, the parties statements would be placed on the main case page, and the uninvolved folks statements would be placed on the talk page, Courcelles 14:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)