Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Youreallycan (talk | contribs) at 06:23, 10 July 2012 (→Filing RfArb was rejected by the Arbcom: add diff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Discussion used

Moving forward

Thanks kindly to the closers for putting so much time and thought into this, it's not like you don't have other wiki-duties. If this is on the wrong page now that the main RFC is over, please tell me where the right page is. As I mentioned above, I think the way forward is to put together working groups of like-minded people. And, I think with an issue with this much history, the much-maligned RFC process is actually useful ... without a deadline, without being able to say "Yes, that's a good argument, but I have to base my close on the arguments given during the RFC, so ...", arguments will forever sprout like hydra heads. I would love to see a series of short, focused RFCs between now and November 1. To the closers: are any or all of you available to close future RFCs? To any of the Option 1 guys who are dubious concerning the close: what would you want to see in future closes that would convince you that these, or any, closers are taking your concerns seriously? (I'm not judging, I'm asking your opinions.) - Dank (push to talk) 08:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have archived the previous discussion, on the assumption that this talk page will be used to plan the next step for PC. —WFC— 08:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think all four of us need a week or two to go do some low-profile article writing, but without speaking for the other three admins here I'm happy to help with future RfCs as necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

While I will probably be watching future PC discussions, I don't believe I will be stepping up to close another. My feeling is that with policy-based closures like PC, you don't want the same people doing the same job on the same topic more than once. Fresh eyes and minds are important. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't plan on closing anything PC related anytime soon. Fluffy has a point about fresh eyes, this is a community target, that means fresh community eyes should be able to close a policy RfC, not putting this on a few people who now could be viewed as supporters of PC (which does not highlight an opinion as I don't have one yet), and making possible arguments for possible biased opinion. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

View of a dubious "Option 1 guy"

In reply to Dank's question: I can imagine how difficult the closers' job was, and I don't want to say anything overly critical while they're all presumably still sighing with relief that it's over. I'm certainly not dubious in the sense of believing it's suspect in any way, and I actually think the overall thrust of the conclusion is reasonable, all things considered. I'm less than happy with the closers' rationale, which seemed overly reliant (to put it mildly) on Option 2 supporters' rebuttals to Option 1 supporters' points and ignored the detailed points made about the awkward aspects of editing PC-protected articles and the learning curve and change in editing protocol that will be required of us all to make it anything other than a hugely cumbersome pain in the ass. Option 1 supporters' rebuttals to Option 2 supporters' points apparently were either disregarded entirely or deemed fallacious.

I also thought this statement was especially unfortunate: "The closers of this RfC reject, as a violation of WP:AGF, the blanket argument that those who support Pending Changes should be assumed to be willing to abuse the system or the giving of user rights." Did anyone make a blanket argument to that effect? If so, I missed it. The topic did come up, but it's not a violation of WP:AGF to extrapolate likely future abuses from past and present abuses; it is a good example of head-in-the-sand denial to pretend there's absolutely nothing to worry about on that score. Anyway, it's not just about good faith; competence is an issue (advanced user permissions are no guarantee of cluefulness, after all). And what about good old fashioned difference of opinion? The only times I've ever been tempted to walk away from Misplaced Pages were when a small group of experienced users, including sysops, have applied what I and many others (including sysops, fwiw) saw as an extreme interpretation of a certain policy in order to stifle discussions that apparently pushed their own personal buttons, not just reverting but promising to block anyone who dared to disagree with them. Already, the call has been made to apply PC to articles covered under that policy.

All in all, I guess I'd say that given the length of time the closers took and the fact that there were four of them, I expected a bit more. I don't doubt they read everything and considered it all carefully, but I can't tell that from the decision they wrote. Actually, I haven't answered your question at all, and having gotten this far, I'm not sure how to answer it. Maybe that I believe the closers took everyone's concerns seriously, but to be convinced of that I'd need the closers to have actually addressed my concerns. Since they couldn't possibly address everyone's concerns, I can only assume that some editors' concerns resonated with them while others didn't. Still, there were what I can only call major concerns that weren't addressed. How to apply that lesson to future RfCs? I have no idea. One thing that might help would be to set them up as actual RfCs, not polls, and allow the discussion to evolve naturally. (The format of this RfC inevitably made actual discussion subsidiary to the numbers.) Problem is, we have only four short months to hold what will need to be multiple discussions in order to avert a debacle beginning on December 1. In a way, the fast-track approach prescribed by the closers is my biggest disappointment here. I'd say it's more important to get it right (or at least minimize the damage)—but the decision has been made. Rivertorch (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Although others have commented on the limitations of the discussion format, personally I found it made it much easier to follow the discussion, as new comments only appeared in a fixed number of places (except at the end, when multiple discussion threads started to spawn). The problem with too many threads to follow is self-perpetuating: it makes it harder for anyone to catch up on all the latest points made, which leads to repetition of points, repetition of rebuttals, and even more discussion threads, exacerbating the whole cycle further. I believe for discussions that have a lot of interested parties, some way of limiting the number of threads to follow is key to keeping the discussions moving forward. One way might be through the use of co-ordinators, as I proposed for arbitration cases, to help organize the discussion points into a fixed number of conversation threads. Another way might be to break down a topic for discussion into specific sub-topics, and have a series of single-threaded conversations on each of them. I'm sure there's lots of other possibilities: I think improving the structure of the conversations will make them easier to follow, saving everyone time, and easier to make contributions that keep moving forward, and not in circles. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason I'm climbing on board the next RFC (I hope ... if no one objects, I'll assume that I'm on board in a few days) is that I believe we can do a lot better than we've done with these RFCs, and I want to explore and document that. Limiting the number of threads is important, as you say, and there are a variety of ways to tackle that. When people can see that the point they want to make is already on a list of points the closers have promised to cover before any decisions get made, they're more likely to be patient. The main thing that causes threads to balloon is when two people who don't trust each other and don't see things the same way keep going at each other. So, I'd like to encourage people to start out working mainly with people who agree with you. Try to suggest and perform experiments to prove your case. (I'll make suggestions on how you might do that as we go along.) The best time to confront the opposition is when you have data and other people backing you up. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My idea about having co-ordinators is related: my thought was that everyone who generally has a similar viewpoint could co-ordinate their discussion points through one co-ordinator, who would then make any required changes to the page hosting the discussion. (If you haven't already read it, the proposal I linked to has a little bit more detail on this in the context of an arbitration case.) isaacl (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be prudent to outline a series of RFC stages, such that first we can focus on creating and refining concrete proposals, and then move on to a the normal support/oppose consensus determinations on the fleshed out proposals. Monty₈₄₅ 00:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for primary switch on

• (1) - I would like to suggest we just switch it on and allow it to be used as we use semi and full - as and when requested on individual articles - just as another tool in the box to help us protect articles. This will also allow a slow and steady start and progressive usage so as to avoid suddenly having excessive reviewing work. I think there was enough experience gained in the trial that users know more or less when and where is is beneficial. Youreallycan 13:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• (2) - What about automatically adding it at creation of all new WP:BLP or {{BLP other}} articles - when the Living template is added to the talkpage? Youreallycan 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• (3) - What about adding it to a a thousand of the current least watched WP:BLP articles, and if that is not an excessive amount of work we could add it to the next thousand - and keep adding a thousand until reviewing work increases unduly - Youreallycan 14:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support either the first or second position, with preference to the second here.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The second one would allow all new articles of living people to get pending protection and the less notable ones would then get attention and additional eyes at start up and the protection levels could be changed or removed moving forwards when its clear if the articles need it or need semi or no protection at all. I imagine a combination of suggestions would be the best, bits of one and bits of another - If you have a suggestion please add it. Thank you. Youreallycan 14:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think the first option is the best starting point, it will allow admins to apply it to the articles most in need on a case by case basis, will allow a slow ramp up of the process, and will allow us to get re accustomed to pending changes. Once it has been active for awhile, we may want to consider option 2 or 3, but I think planning to go immediately to either of them will cause unnecessary controversy. Monty₈₄₅ 17:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, you make an interesting point. As we know there is a sizeable opposition to the tool we could only allow it to be requested via WP:RFPP and through discussion here and in a RFC, work out some guide for good editing violations/situations to request it under. Youreallycan 18:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree, option one would be best. PC should be considered not as an entity unto itself but as one of several page protection options. We saw during the trial that in some cases it is not the appropriate tool for the job, such as very high volume pages or very long articles. We also saw that it is sometimes a better option in some situations where semi protection would traditionally be applied. The trick is going to be coming up with guidance to help admins decide which is best in any given situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I like option 1 best, but not "if and when formally requested through RFPP". Instead, it ought to be used exactly like any other, which means that any admin can do it as needed.

I would particularly like to see this used to get the protection lowered on some indef-semi'd pages. PC gives us a chance to move those pages back into "anyone can edit" (just with a delay) mode. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer right

• My take on what issue to address next would be the reviewer right. Many users in both this and the previous RFC expressed concerns about it. Common concerns include:

• Standards for being granted the right
• What constitutes abuse of the right
• Will we have enough reviewers to handle the workload

Another point brought up on the talk page which certainly needs to be clarified is what should a reviewer do when they see an edit that is proposed that is in good faith, does not violate any specific policies, but which they nonetheless disagree with. I think this scenario is the crux of the argument that reviewers will be part of a class structure. If they reject such an edit, they are doing so as an editor not as a reviewer. Like all tools it should not be used to gain an advantage in a content dispute, but that puts us in a position of asking users to accept edits they do not believe are beneficial. It's a pretty sticky situation and we need to come up with some clear, specific guidance for reviewers in such a situation or this will almost certainly be the area of PC use that causes the most problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an important part of the discussion. I put it under its own header , I hope you don't mind - feel free to revert if you feel it doesn't warrent it - Youreallycan 17:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I agree with almost all of your points and would add the following

• The standards reviewers should use when reviewing an edit
• Standards for removal of the right

To start with, your comment regarding what reviewers should do with edits they disagree with is actually more of a symbolic question, yet if not handled properly is likely to cause alot of strife. The bureaucratic approach is that a reviewer must approve the disagreeable edit with their reviewer hat on, and then revert the now approved edit as a regular editor. Its a functionally pointless extra step, as declining the change would have the same result, but will lend it self to the class structure complaint. As to the first point, anyone with either a specified number of edits, OR demonstrated competency in a place like WP:FAC or WP:AFD should be presumed eligible and granted the right on request. The presumption of eligibility could then be overriden if there is a serious problem in their editing history related to BLP/Copyvio/etc. While reviewing, teviewers should be expected to catch blatant violations and to look more carefully for the specific problem the page was protected for, but not be expected to exentsively vet a change against every possible problem. If they don't see a major policy violation they should approve and then make changes as approriate as a regular editor. Finally, the right should only be removed if there is a clear pattern of bad reviewing, or if an admin has discussed a specific reviewing issue with the reviewer and its clear that even after the discussion the reviewer does not understand a core policy related to PC. Monty₈₄₅ 17:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we are currently more in a mode of planning what the next discussion will be about, not actually having the discussion yet. A new RFC or other discussion at WP:RVW is probably where the actual discussion will take place. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is substantial opposition to this "feature". I think that those opposing, and a significant fraction of those supporting, should favor a standard equivalent to that in de.wikipedia, where any editor with 300 edits automatically possesses the reviewer right. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody should be using edit counts alone for determining if someone is fit to hold a role with significant ramifications for its use - including Reviewer, Rollback, and Edit Filter Manager. That is the best way to assure that someone who has zero business using the tool acquires it. What good is having no backlog when half the people abuse it and the other half are chasing bad with good? —Jeremy v^_^v 04:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus

Pending Changes will become live on 1 December, 2012. To allow developers enough preparation time, we recommend that community discussion about changes to the draft Pending Changes policy be concluded no later than 1 November, 2012. If the community has not, at that time, reached a consensus about how to change the draft policy, Pending Changes will be implemented according to the terms of the Draft Policy until the community can find a consensus.

With the opposition to Position #1 so high, this is really surprising. I understand that the strength of the argument matters, but I don't believe that it's wise to alienate 30% – 40% of the community. This is simply begging for civil war (or at least many, many retirements). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes well, we have to move forwards, lets hope the sky doesn't fall in . I am sure it won't. - Better to focus on the section above, what/were/articles we implement the decision on.Youreallycan 14:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not going to try to gather complex data and have complex discussions with 300 people, all expressing different opinions; that doesn't work. For me, Step One is finding out who will close the next relevant RFC. I can understand if some of the Option 1 guys may wonder if they're going to be heard, so let's deal with that issue. Guys, what would you need to hear from potential closers to satisfy you that they're going to do a good job of listening to your concerns? When that's settled and I know who I'm trying to make a case to, there are some things I want to say about how we can make the process faster, more productive, and more inclusive. Michael makes a good point that one of the top priorities should be making changes that can bring as many people on board as possible. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dank, I have no illusions that anyone will be heard. This will become a free-for-all, with admins randomly adding this to any article they personally think is appropriate, and the bigger issue is how to deal with the wheel wars that will come when it's clear that the policy doesn't match the practice. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but I'll simply point to what happened when we activated revision deletion. My own observation is that at least 30% of revision deletions don't meet the requirements of the deletion policy. Haven't had a single case brought to Arbcom, though. It's just one more way for admins to push their own points of view. Risker (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would never discard anything you had to say out of hand, Risker, and besides, you're making an excellent point here. It's very much in line with what many of the Option 1 people were saying, namely: this idea of "reviewing" should not be as trivial or breezy as some are making out. I'm not going to say whether the voters were right or wrong ... only that it's a substantial position with substantial support that needs thorough testing before PC is turned on. I don't read the close to say that it's a done deal that PC should be allowed to sprout like weeds ... if testing determines that we need to be careful and put limits on it, then that's what we need to do.

Being bold: I seem to be one of the few people who was leaning Option 3 (although I didn't vote) who seems to be getting along well with the opposers. I really think it's important for whoever the next closers are to step up sooner rather than later and reach out to the opposition, who we can reasonably expect to be disaffected. Does anyone object if I ask the other 3 closers (other than Blade) if they are in for Round 2, and if there's an opening, if I could jump in? I'm more "talky" than the typical RFC closer, but then, the main RFC is over, and I think a more active style may be warranted. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we just had a vote where people's support for a proposal that wasn't being put forward was actively included as support for the proposal that *was* being put forward (and let's stop kidding ourselves, that wasn't an RFC, it was a vote). Persuade me that there's the slightest chance that a more precise policy will be developed, and that it will actually be enforceable. Risker (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to create the page WT:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012/Risker; feel free to delete it if it doesn't work for you. The idea is to encourage you (and I'll make a page for anyone else who wants one) to work up your own proposal that has a reasonable chance of gathering support and a reasonable chance of dealing with your concerns. I'll get you started by copying some of what you've said there, and asking a few questions. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't, Dank. My time in the next few weeks will be consumed by (1) Arbcom cases, (2) RL work and (3) Wikimania preparations and attendance; this isn't even in my top-8 priorities. This is an expected disappointment: I knew how this was going to end the moment I saw the page. Risker (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I really see the way they chose to close this as a win/win situation. We've done what the RFC was designed to do, to make just that one very important decision, and they have given us five months to work it the details.. I should think that would be more than enough time to transform the humble draft policy we have now into something more comprehensive that users will feel more comfortable with. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course you like the close, Beeblebrox: your proposal is endorsed completely. You've done it pretty well exactly the opposite of what RFC is supposed to do, which is to consider options FIRST and then decide which ones are the best. But the objective was met, and I give you props for figuring out a way to get a decision of any nature out of the community. Unfortunately, it pretty well means that any future decisions are going to have three choices that drive toward a specific conclusion, and no opposition to that format will be permitted, but at least it's a decision-making process. I just don't think it should be called RFC. Risker (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't be like that Risker. I know you don't like the result, and I know you don't like the format I designed, but the goal here was always to answer just that one question we were not allowed to answer last year. So, we'd alreay tried it the more traditional way and it didn't work. When this went live I honestly had no idea how it would turn out and if PC had been rejected entirely by the community I would be fine with that.

I don't think this type of restricted discussion should be used for just any old discussion though, only for cases like this where we already tried it the other way and repeatedly failed to arrive at an actionable result. I actually originally proposed this approach near the end of the last RFC, I waited a year for someone else to come up with a better idea, and nobody did, so this is what went forward. It is certainly not intended as a model for all future discussions. I actually would have preferred my other idea of a questionaire filled out by each participant, but there was a lot of trouble coming to an agreement as to what the questions should be. Maybe we could dust off that approach in the coming months, it could be useful in identifying exactly what tweaks and improvements are needed for the policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please link the "Draft policy" referenced above. My76Strat (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pending Changes - isn't this it? - Youreallycan 18:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Go to Misplaced Pages:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012/Option_2 and click the "show" link. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have linked the page above with a direct link. I presume the talk page there is the place where discussion to improve the policy will be marshaled? The talk page there is red linked and I leave it to those most familiar with appropriate forward momentum to create the page and set the discussion parameters, which I am keen to enjoin. My76Strat (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI: The draft policy is actually transcluded from its own page at Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Provisional policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes sir, that is the page I believe I linked in the opening above. I am still curious if that talk page is where discussion will take place regarding suggestions and tweaks? My76Strat (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The talk page of the draft policy seems logical for proposed changes to it. If we are going to discuss reviewing first probably the talk page of WP:RVW. However, I think it is important at this point that the next phases of this discussion be initiated by someone other than me, so its up to whoever decides to step up and get the ball back in play. For the record, I found the closers for this discussion by repeatedly posting at WP:AN, so if that is what the very next step is that might be a good place to start. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to this discussion, and I haven't yet been able to find where the changes to the implementation policy are being discussed. I've browsed through the links above, and haven't found anything so far. Would somebody be kind enough to direct me to the policy discussion? Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no such discussion yet, a logical place seems to be Misplaced Pages talk:Pending changes/Provisional policy, but perhaps a better place would be something like Misplaced Pages talk:Pending changes/Changes to provisional policy or something like that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In about 24 hours, we'll start a 4-month process with a big RFC at the end and probably some smaller ones along the way to tackle just those questions. For now, see my last comment below at #Getting started. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I read the section, as well as the one on Blade's talk page. If I understood that one correctly, you are considering having people create pages of the form WP:PC/(your username) or User:(Username)/PC to discuss, propose, and hammer out changes to the provisional policy. Is that correct? If so, I hope there will be a centralized discussion page somewhere (not this page) where we can discuss/vote on others' ideas. The way I envision it would be to have Misplaced Pages talk:Pending changes/Changes to provisional policy be the hub, and then have branches off of that of the form Misplaced Pages talk:Pending changes/Changes to provisional policy/UserName where users can write drafts of their ideas.

I'm kind of excited that PC is going to get another shot (I missed the first round) and I have a couple ideas I think could be helpful. Right now I'm just anxious to see the discussion move from this RFC talk page (continuing to debate the close) to somewhere else where we can move ahead and solve the problems. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Did the closers loot at the counter-arguments some folks posted on the various other pages in an attempt to get around the pure vote format? I ask because they were kind of scattered around the place, few added to vote comments, most added to the discussion and to this page, maybe a few to the talkpages of the particular options, etc... of course the thing wasn't supposed to be discussed, and counter-arguments didn't have any place here, but I am curious. -— Isarra ༆ 18:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Noto to nitpick, but I have to object to the contention that it wasn't supposed to be discussed. The format was designed to accomodate those who wished to have yet another discussion and those (as it turned out the overwhelming majority of participants on both sides of the issue) who felt we had already discussed this enough and they were ready to state their position. Given the length of time the closers took to come to their decision and the detail contained in that decision, it seems pretty clear to me that they read and took into consideration every comment made here. That was the job they agreed to take on after all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seemed you yourself said that that was the point behind the design, to cut out the inevitably ineffectual discussion so the matter could finally just be resolved in a vote? Given what apparently happened in the previous, actual, discussions, I can't say I blame you, but breaking up a... whatever this is like this is only serves to provide a barrier from direct interaction, rather like is done in arbcom cases, so I'm not sure why else it would have been done. My question isn't about that, or about the discussion on the discussion page that was a part of the thing, however, but the fact that a lot of the actual discussion wound up on various scattered talk pages and whatnot, especially after concerns that the main discussion was getting too long or some such. Some of the possibly more relevant discussions (such as folks trying to actively address each others' concerns) took place elsewhere as a result, and some even after the main thing had been closed anyway, as well, so I'm just wondering. -— Isarra ༆ 20:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The "RFC" was deliberately designed to minimize and fragment actual discussion. To start with, the "discussion" section was hived off to a separate page whose links were at the very bottom of the page, rather than at the very top of the page, and it was made very clear to anyone who contemplated correcting this that any changes would be reverted. The closing statement does not in any way give weight to discussion, only to votes. Risker (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I lament the bad faith I see in your comment. My76Strat (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The next closers

I'm linking this new section from Blade's announcement of the results at WP:AN to invite any admins interested in closing the next round to come throw their hats in; if we get more than we need, then I invite anyone who has an opinion on who we need (or don't need) to comment here. I see above that Blade is available and Fluffernutter is not. I'm available; I've been following this, I've been asked, and I think I can be helpful, but we'll see. I agree with Rivertorch's statement above that 4 months feels like not a lot of time, given the job ahead. So I think we need to get moving on the next mini-RFC, starting with selecting the next closers. I would prefer for the closers to be more proactive for the next round that closers normally are; I think success (or failure) is going to come after investing a lot of time in listening to everyone who has a beef. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No objection to you and Blade, I agree with User:Flutternutter that fresh eyes are needed - but if an admin feels fresh and still willing to contribute and there are no objections then I don't see any problem with that. - Youreallycan 20:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need to sign up people to close these "mini-RFCs" now. For one thing, I don't think it's practical: we don't know how many there will be, or how many of them will actually require a formal closure, and therefore how many people will needed to close them. For another, I doubt that they will be "miniature" in any sense, especially since the sore losers from the previous one will try to re-fight the will-we-or-won't-we battle all over again. And finally, I'm not convinced that an RFC is always the best way to handle the majority of the issues that we might want to sort out in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that question was at the top of my list, too. This was obviously a difficult close, and I can't fault the closers ... but the language is a little vague. Closers: obviously, any discussion that even might lead to another RFC carries "risk", from the point of view of people who prefer the draft version, so some of them are naturally going to prefer no more closers and no more RFCs. Is that position consistent with your closing statement? If there's another discussion leading to an RFC, did you intend for that to happen now, or off in the future? - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself (though the other three closers' opinions may be/are probably similar), I don't feel that it was the closers' intention to set the when or where for next-step discussions, except to say "if you want to have them, maybe have them before the switch gets flipped?". The details are up to the community, and we can neither compel the community to discuss PC prior to November, or compel them not to (or compel them to do it when we think it ought to be done, or compel them to do it in a manner we think would work best...). I think that since so many people pointed out weaknesses in the draft policy, it's more than likely the community will choose to pursue further RfC-ish sorts of things between now and November - and one person or group's choice to participate or not participate in further discussion does not eliminate other people's ability to have those discussions should they choose to. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll proceed until and unless it seems wise not to proceed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My concerns

So, here are my concerns, in no real order.

• First, I'm not really sure on the RfC close. It would seem a major structural change to the project should require an overwhelming consensus, and this didn't look like it. It seems this was treated more as a vote, with arguments checked as an afterthought. That being said, there wouldn't be any consensus to reverse it, either, so I suppose we're stuck with it.
• The idea that we'll have a "default" setup on a "deadline" if no other consensus is reached, and we'll start using it anyway, concerns me. If we can't reach consensus on how to use it, we shouldn't use it until and unless we can, and that should be the only time at which we will. Realistically, the discussion should have started at working on the question of how if at all it should be used, and if no policy for use could gain consensus, the status quo ante, no use at all, should remain.
• If we are stuck with PC, it should be used only where semiprotection (level 1) or full protection (level 2) would be appropriate. We should certainly not be using it to expand the circumstances under which we restrict editing.
• We need to be clear that the removal of the reviewer right is an administrative sanction, and is subject to all restrictions on such, including that removal must be preventive rather than punitive, must be based upon actual wrongdoing, and must not be performed by an involved admin. For why this in particular is a concern of mine, see the history of User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt (it's a redirect back to the main user page now, so you have to go back to the history). To sum up, an administrator removed the reviewer right of an editor with whom he was engaged in a content dispute, and specifically because he did not like the other editor's position in the dispute. The issue was ultimately dropped as moot because the PC trial was ended during the discussion, but it's not moot now.
• Yep, I recognize the scenario Rivertorch states above, and I'll say what I bet its name is: BLP. BLP itself is a good policy and one we all should follow, but hysteria over it is not good. I've seen many users who should know better, including admins, use "BLP" as a bludgeon and an excuse to not even brook an argument in content disputes (including in the rights removal example I linked above). It must not be allowed to be used as a bludgeon or "trump card" here, and there should be no especial use of PC on BLPs where semi/full protection would be inappropriate under current policy.
• Like protection, PC should only be used indefinitely as a last resort. It's hard to remember to check up on something a couple of months later, so the default should be that each use will have an expiry.

I'm sure I'll think of more. Seraphimblade 21:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah thanks for your comments - I would note that your link to the discission about User:Wnt is not linking to the discussion - could you please see if you can correct that - thanks - Personally - imo - any user that vocally and repeatedly rejects primary wikipedia policy such as WP:BLP as the day the project died as User:Wnt does, should not hold WP:reviewer status, but this is a good topic to discuss and resolve here and has been opened above in the Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012#The_reviewer_right section. Regards - Youreallycan 21:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You can use this, if you prefer, it's the last edit before the page was changed to a redirect. Your attitude there, that an editor should be penalized for holding an unpopular position (but does not act, against consensus, on that position, just argues for it), is exactly my fear in bringing this up. Seraphimblade 21:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have an "attitude there" - I objected to the User:Wnt's desired content additions - his desired additions were strongly rejected - I support the removal of advanced permissions from all users that vocally object to, or refuse to accept current wiki policy as "the day the project died" - saying that - I personally wouldn't take it off them until they specifically made a violating review/content addition and would be happy for User:Wnt to have the right replaced under this position. A position of, although I object to and vocally reject WP:BLP policy I will not violate it .. sort of declaration would be more than satisfactory and I think I can remember him saying such in a discussion with me.Youreallycan 21:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Passing PC is bad - how bad depends on several factors. If reviewer rights are granted to every editor with over 300 edits, like on de.wikipedia, then it will do less to put a few users in power over others; but I think that would be contrary to its intended purpose. If reviewer rights at least depend on ability to follow policy, then at allegations based on POV disputes will be limited to the usual wikilawyering. But if they are given and taken based solely on ideology, we skip straight to the battleground. In a similar manner, it is worse if applied to many articles, or applied at Level 2, than if it is applied more rarely (provided that the comments about stealth level 2 via non-processing of IP comments don't turn out to have truth to them). It may be that Misplaced Pages can learn its mistake here only after it loses its reputation and readership as the general public rebels against biased and censored content; more likely, these lessons are for new sites as yet unfounded to benefit from. Wnt (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It must be a tremendous burden to carry that much lament. I am curious; at what point or series of benchmarks would you realize; sufficiently to admit your visions of imminent peril were unfounded and/or that collapse is no longer the looming consequence that you freely predict today? My76Strat (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

a) the RfA jam-up is broken. b) the same few editors stop succeeding in getting Arbitration to desysop one inclusionist admin after another. c) Pending Changes not used to enforce the same party line on all important political/news articles. d) Misplaced Pages actually starts giving more comprehensive (i.e. less censored) information in articles about recent events than Google or Encyclopedia Dramatica. Something like that. Wnt (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A few points

First of all, I find the close of this RFC very disturbing. 61% is far lower than the usual standards for consensus, and this RFC deals with a major issue, so this result will quite possibly lower the normal standards, damaging discussions for a long time. If in future issues consensus isn't really needed in order to pass a proposal, and after all discussions have been going on for a long time a small majority in favor of a change is all that the eventual result needs to be, discussion and compromise aimed at resulting in possible consensus will be effectively thrown out the window. Unless this particular result is shown to have been "different" somehow, future attempts to find consensus will be much more difficult.

Second, I'm bothered by the fact that no one seems to have given any sort of explanation of what PC is supposed to be good for. Is it assumed that the review queue would be generally empty, or often backlogged, or what? Suppose that the implementation of PC was that edits to PC-protected articles would only be hidden to users after they had gone 5-10 minutes without being reviewed; would that ruin the point entirely, be an improvement, be completely backwards? What is PC targeted at fixing? I think it would be helpful if someone could put together an explanation of what the best-case scenario for a PC-protected article would be.

Third point: The schedule set by the close leaves four months until a decision is made, and five months until it's implemented. At that point, there could very well be relevant new Mediawiki extensions or improvements either already enabled or less than a few months away, that would need to be taken into account when determining the details of the PC implementation. I don't know the WMF's schedule for these things, but if we could find out, it would be helpful in seeing what PC will actually be like when used. For example, suppose a new notifications system becomes available. The community could have the review process work something like this: a new user or anon edits a PC article, a dozen or so "available" reviewers regardless of where they are on WP instantly have little boxes show up in the corner of their screens indicating that there's an edit needing review, one of them clicks to look at it causing the boxes on other reviewers' screens to fade/disappear/become inactive, reviewer reviews the edit, and a couple of seconds after the IP/anon editor is finished with their slight annoyance that (insert message explaining the PC situation here), the editor gets a little notification on their screen saying that their edit was reviewed. (I'm probably horribly overestimating review speeds.) Would people find this setup an improvement? Example #2: How would PC work with real-time collaborative editing? Suppose an edit is submitted by multiple users, at least one of which is autocomfirmed and at least one of which isn't. Is this edit automatically accepted? Would the need for review "hover over" any editing session? What are the likely social effects of PC in this context?

(Perhaps I should have split this post up into multiple sections... Meh.) --Yair rand (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

From purely a closer's perspective, while 61% on its face is a small minority, in this case it was over 300 people, so it's all on how you look at it. For a standard RM or RfC, assuming same strength of arguments as here I'd have no trouble declaring consensus that way. It's only a relatively few processes, such as RfA, that require more. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of like I said above. It was a totally unacceptable close (61% isn't even enough to promote a single user to admin, let alone to make a major structural change), and the close was a supervote, since a real evaluation would've been "No consensus for the change, status quo remains." A major structural change requires more proportionally overwhelming support than an RfA or AfD, not less. But what's done is done, and we're stuck with it, because we could never get a consensus to overturn it. So let's work with what we've got and make it the best it can be. Seraphimblade 01:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded a bit of reading this; glad I did now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Just in case people are confused; this was intended as a bit of humor. It plays both upon the trope of hyperbole and facetiousness, there's no ill will or complaint intended on my part. 14:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet 61% is more then it takes to become an ARB, WP:ACE2011#Results and that is a straight up vote that doesn't even consider the strengths of the arguments. Monty₈₄₅ 03:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but it is actually billed as a straight-up vote that doesn't take into consideration any arguments. It's not masquerading as a discussion. In this case, the selected format is one that is intended to focus mainly on discussion, but the discussion was deprecated, tacked on to the bottom of the page after everyone had already expressed their opinions, without any serious attempt to address the points raised in the discussion. Just as importantly, this did not address issues raised in the *previous* discussions about the same subject, except for the comparatively minor point of whether or not to use this feature. The discussion of whether or not to use the feature should have come after "does this feature work?", "what would we use it for?", "what were the problems during the trial, and did we/how do we/can we fix them?" "what standards would be needed for this to work?" I am particularly disturbed that the closers have supported the notion of activating a feature *regardless* of whether or not the community can come to consensus on these questions. Risker (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept the implication that a straight up vote should require a lower threshold of support than something which tried to be a qualitative discussion – albeit didn't always succeed. But that's a side-issue.

(Disclaimer: The RfC close very much reflects my POV, and I don't in any way intend to hide that. Nonetheless I think the following is relevant.) One of the arguments which I believe carried this was that for as long as PC's very existence is in limbo, the vocal and significant minority who unconditionally want to kill it with fire have no incentive to engage in the policy's development.

I don't think the closers had much of a choice here. If the first two options had been taken literally, and no other courses of action considered, the choice would have been between permanently killing off a system which at most 30% of participants idealogically oppose (probably significantly fewer: I'm talking about opponents who have made clear that PC should never be considered), or activating a system which is too liberal and too open to admin discretion for something which at least half of users have raised a degree of concern over (that is, opponents, those in option three, plus those in option two who voiced concern about this particular implementation). —WFC— 05:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the way PC has been implemented on this project (It shouldn't have to take a fucking RfC to shut down a time-limited trial) I'd say part of the "ideological" protests are less protests about PC and more protests about its supporters forcing the rest of the Wiki to adopt it. This is also a huge part of the reason PC as a whole is a landmine almost comparable to (dare I say it) the Balkans. Both sides have entrenched views, feel wronged (whether rightly or not) and don't assume good faith towards each other. —Jeremy v^_^v 04:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Risker's point—in essence, that the cart is being put before the horse—is perfectly true. This was discussed at some length during the RfC, to no apparent effect. I also agree with Yair rand that 61% is pretty low for full-speed-ahead approval of such a major change, and that this could set an unfortunate precedent. Having taken a couple of days to reflect, I realize that I've become more dissatisfied with the close than I was initially. What really gnaws at me is the complete lack of acknowledgment that any of the Option 1 supporters' arguments (including our rebuttals to various Option 2 positions) just might conceivably have had some merit. I don't get that at all; I think the rationale the closers provided was terribly inadequate. Nevertheless, I doubt that anything good will come of bemoaning it here much longer. What Seraphimblade says about working with what we've got is correct. I'm not going to paint on a happy face and pretend I'm happy about it, but if there's no way backward, then the only constructive approach is to move forward as best we can, with as much good will as we can. Four months (Why such a fast track???) will be gone before we know it, and I'd like to see the foreseeable negative effects of PC minimized as much as possible before the fact. Rivertorch (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Valid points Rivertorch. I think the correct conclusion was made, but it is valid to ask for a bit more analysis on where they felt option 1 arguments had merit.

As for timeframes, again a valid point, but I entirely sympathise with the closers. Had the proposed timeline ran into 2013, they would have been criticised for stringing this out too long. On the face of it, in the knowledge of what is going to happen if we fail to reach a workable compromise, four months of discussion might well give all "sides" time to reach one. —WFC— 06:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Side note: Risker, in re your question "does this feature work?", would you please confirm that you've actually read the pages that report the results from the trial? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I probably understand the strengths and weaknesses of the tool better than almost anyone participating in this vote. I was one of the administrators most involved in the trial, probably put more pages into the trial than anyone else, and followed it extremely closely. I also know all of the tool's weak points, and I have commented on them on a few occasions during this vote. Pending changes does *not* work properly on large pages — browser crashes were commonplace, and this is not something that can be fixed without a rewrite of the software, according to the developers who looked at it at the time. It does not work well on rapidly developing articles — by the time someone can "approve" an edit, others have already built upon it. It does not work well on featured articles — aside from the fact these articles tend to be large, there are often significant disputes as to whether the insertion of the information is appropriate to the article; these edits need to be discussed prior to inclusion, generally. It does not work well if the primary/most knowledgeable editors don't have reviewer permissions, because they wind up reverting the often ill-informed additions that would be blocked by semi-protection and would have to be taken to the talk page. It does not work well when there are multiple edits to be reviewed in cases where only some of those edits are appropriate and others aren't; reviewers cannot go through and "approve" or revert each edit individually, so tend to revert the mass and not keep the useful edits. It does not work well on contentious BLPs because WP:BLP-violating material becomes part of the article's history instead of never getting through semi-protection.

Articles were removed from the trial when it became apparent that there were too many problem edits coming through; thus, the statistics suggest incorrectly that many of those articles had a net benefit from IP edits. In fact, they wound up being semi-protected again because of IP edits. The rules of the trial required reviewers to accept any non-vandalistic/non-BLP violating edits, and there is no tracking in any of the data to show how many of the accepted edits were reverted shortly thereafter.

I would have strongly endorsed a new, better controlled, better considered trial of this tool, with much a much clearer decision tree to figure out (a) what articles would be eligible and (b) what the standard would be for reviewing. Risker (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we are where we are, so unless someone feels it is time to drag arbcom into this situation (pleaase don't) we should try to move forward with what we've got. Fortunately, Risker has just provided us with a very informative analysis of what didn't work in the trial. Whether that was your intention or not I sincerely thank you for those comments, too many people have been vague or overly genaeralized in their criticisms of the tool. The kind of direct, specific criticisms listed here are exactly the kind of thing that should be taken into consideration when writing new policy for this tool. If it doesn't work well on large on heavily trafficked articles then admins should be advised to use semi protection instead in such cases. It should be made clear to users that if they see PC causing moreroblems than it is solving at a particular article they should post at RFPP to ask for either semi or unprotection. The question of what to do with edits that are not vandalism but which the reviewer would nonetheless feel compelled to revert if they had gone live has got to be given the uptmost attention, as I had already mentioned above. If finding closers is what is holding up the beginning of new rfcs or other discussions to resolve these issues then perhaps we should consider starting without them. All we really need is someone (someone besides me) to intiate a new discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh geez Beeblebrox, I seriously could not imagine why anyone would even think about bringing this to Arbcom; the time to do that would have been three months ago when the RFC process was initiated. I'm very happy to provide the summary of problems with PC; I think it's the second or third time I've done it on the pages related to this RFC, and I also made similar summaries on the Wiki-en-L mailing list recently, on the Wiki-en-L (and possibly Foundation-L) mailing list contemporaneous to the scheduled end of the trial, and in the review of the trial itself. None of this is news, I'm sorry to say. What disturbs me is that it *isn't* new information, and yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the background notes for this vote. Risker (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And I just remembered the other point that was never satisfactorily answered. When an editor makes a change to a publicly viewable page, that person retains full responsibility for that edit; that's why the few lawsuits that have occurred over the years have been editor-specific. But a pending change is not publicly viewable until a reviewer accepts it. There are good arguments that the act of accepting an edit (thus, making it public) means that the responsibility for its content then falls on the reviewer, or at least is equally shared by the reviewer. Given that pending changes will only be applied to articles for which there is already a known history of problematic edits, the imperative to "get it right" is even greater for reviewers than for recent changes patrollers - and RC patrollers are already considered fully responsible for anything they either return to or remove from articles. Risker (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional technical issues were discussed here: http://www.mediawiki.org/Talk:Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap/Archive_1 and the associated project page. Risker (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• As per Risker - we are all totally responsible for any edit we make here - (I won't mention legally as the bells go off) - and reviewers will have the same responsibility as if it was their edit - although they will have a mitigation as a volunteer only reviewing and not the person actually desirous of making the addition, and considering the addition only in regards to en wikipedia policy that is something reviewers should be clearly be made aware of - this element of responsibility will allow a review with consideration for that fact (its really good that we promote this fact to reviewers) - that is a good thing - a hot spot unidentifiable IP address makes an addition with no responsibility and it is reviewed by a person that is identifiable and therefore with more responsibility - It is a good thing to raise the level of responsibility in regards to additions - especially in regards to living people - WP:Responsibility , perhaps Misplaced Pages:Accountability a failed proposal is a better link to expand - Youreallycan 19:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• If a reviewer does not feel 100 percent cool with taking responsibility for any desired addition they should not accept it and move it to the talkpage for discussion where additional input, discussion and WP:Consensus can arise and the responsibility duly shared. - Youreallycan 20:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest you were thinking of taking this to the arbs, I know you're smarter than that, just making the point that it is time to move forward and that you have provided us with a lot of points that need to ne addressed in the next few months. That last one seems more like a question for the lawyers though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't hijack this thread to elaborate on my views, but I personally don't think that the idea of taking this decision to ArbCom is at all unreasonable or otherwise inane; it's fair to say that few AfD closures of comparable veracity would avoid or survive DRV.   — C M B J   06:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that way, go ahead and start an RfAR; no one's holding you back. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving to the talkpage is an interesting idea. But I've heard people say that BLP applies to talk pages... in which case, could you do so only if you think such an edit is consistent with BLP in the first place? Wnt (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes - If a reviewer thinks a desired addition is a violation of BLP then you would just reject it and not repost it anywhere - with an edit summary of BLP violation - ( No WP:Reviewer is requested to take full responsibility for what they consider to be content that violates en wikipedia's WP:BLP policy by posting it to an en wikipedia talkpage - and that needs to be made clear to them) - I don't think any desired addition of content that is uncited should be placed on the talkpage if it is at all contentious - If contributing as a WP:Reviewer and uncited content was posted and looked worthy of addition - noteworthy I would look for a citation and add the content when I found one - Youreallycan 15:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

YRC is correct - BLP applies on every Misplaced Pages page, regardless of namespace. Meaning once BLP concerns have been raised, the material is not to be reposted anywhere on Misplaced Pages until CRASH has been sufficiently bribed to remove their spurious BLP assertion on an edit about some minor politician from Bumfuck, Tennessee. —Jeremy v^_^v 02:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL - As per usual - if you are editing from a hotspot and your condescending weakly cited/uncited addition about such a person is rejected by a WP:Reviewer, you could open a discussion about your desired addition on the talkpage and invite more opinions - Reviewers repeatedly opposed by consensus could/should be discussed for removal of the right. There were no historic incidents/complaints of the worry you cite being reported during the trial (none that I remember anyways) - Youreallycan 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the likelihood an anon will use a talkpage when reverted as opposed to just edit-warring or abandoning the topic area/Wikipedia altogether, YRC? This is primarily a question of psychology and perception, not ability to do anything, and it always has been. When it gets to the point where we're using BLPs as holy things to be defended from corruption of others (see also: Scott Macdonald v. Wnt), then you forfeit any argument that everything will be fine. —Jeremy v^_^v 04:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I've added a summary of your comments about which pages aren't good candidates to Misplaced Pages:Pending changes#Trial_results. Please feel free to correct any errors I've made there.

I think that we need to consider "what's smart (or not)" separately from "the policy". We have an institutional history that tells us when SEMI will work and when it's a waste of effort. We don't have the same experience with PC. IMO we don't really need to write "not so great on Featured articles" into a formal policy page—but equally IMO we do need to write it down somewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone please remove the part that is bolded, since the result of the RfC has been determined:

"This RfC was open for 60 days from its start date. This means it was closed to comment at 23:59 UTC on May 22, 2012. The coordinating administrators are in the process of determining the result."

Also, could Fluffernutter's closing comment, "Coordinating admins are working on a close. Target date unknown at the moment, but we will try to keep the community updated," be changed to a statement saying that the result has been determined? Thanks, David 23:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: If there was a result they would post it. Where is the result posted?—cyberpower _Absent 23:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

At the top of the page. --Yair rand (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

On the off chance that the closers have any last-minute additions, I'm going to leave this alone for one of the closers to look at. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry 'bout that, both of those slipped our notice. I've removed/updated the "close pending" comments. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fluffernutter! David 01:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have my doubts that the solution for getting more sensible response to a badly broken up discussion is to create a new discussion that is deliberately broken up. If it is going to broken up, I'd rather see it by topic area than by user. Risker (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like WP:PC2012 is going to be the final destination. If you change your mind for some reason and decide to move it again, I'd suggest leaving redirects this time, since the last series of moves broke a bunch of links (I had already asked a couple of people for opinions, linking to my page). Also, I think I'll leave a note below, recommending that the people still protesting the close check out the new page and join the conversation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is ironic that a user who has repeatedly raised the question of bias, and who states "...I'm a stickler about the numbers" would represent 35.4% of participants in this RfC as "nearly 40% of the encyclopedia".

The only thing that appears clear is that there was not sufficient opposition for the closers to effectively say "the community has spoken, PC is dead in the water". Surely even PC's opposers recognise that such an emphatic closure would have required – at the very least – a majority of participants to have voted for something other than option two in this RfC? —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(continued from above) More than 60% of participants in this RfC supported PC, more a third opposed it. In most circumstances that would make no consensus the primary consideration, but would not automatically rule out a closing "in favour" of PC (for want of a more appropriate phrase) if there were good reasons to do so. —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(continued from above) It is highly probable that the ratio of idealogical support and idealogical opposition will always be roughly the same as it is now. This statement does not necessarily mean that any future RfC is doomed to no consensus. It merely means that for at least as long as this issue has not been decided, there will always be a substantial number of people who will never accept having anything like PC, and another substantial number who will never accept not having anything like it. —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(continued from above)It should of course be acknowledged that any form of PC would be unlikely to satisfy those who do not want it. But if PC were ever to be introduced, opponents should have the right to help shape the policy under which it is used. —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(continued from above) Unless the return of PC was inevitable at the time of drafting, it is implausible that PC sceptics would have been proportionately represented in creating a workable PC policy. —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(continued from above) Some critics of this decision point to two thirds support, or the RfA threshold (70–75%), as a more appropriate numerical barometer. Given that at least 64.6% of participants expressed a degree of support for PC, it is plausible that in a future RfC, a small percentage increase in the level of support could result in PC being introduced straight away. If this were to happen, the opinions of PC sceptics probably wouldn't be fairly reflected in PC policy. —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(continued from above) A closure along the lines of the one made to this RfC represented the best possible chance of creating a PC policy which is representative of the community's view. There is absolutely no guarantee that this will be the case, but it did nonetheless represent the best possible chance. —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You are conflating two separate issues. Look closely again at the note in the RFC about improving it first, it clearly differentiates between the option of improving the policy first, which was defined as option three and was very much on the table, and improving the tool itself, which costs money since the paid staff would be doing it and was not an option since they had already developed it to this point and we still were unsure if we would even use it. That being said, I would reiterate at this point that unless you plan to take this to the arbcom there is nothing to be gained by picking apart the close. It's done and there is only a small group here protesting it.Those of us that are interested in actually trying to move forward instead of backward should cease partipating in such talk and focus our efforts on resolving the issues with the policy. Otherwise we are going to end up stuck with my draft policy as all we've got. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

- I have noticed that the people unhappy with this close are the vocal minority strongly against the use of a much more effective BLP protection tool than semi or full protection. Don't be surprised if Arbcom decline this case. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)