Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012

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 Wikipedia 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 ^Bori! 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)

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

No. Go to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Provisional policy, but perhaps a better place would be something like Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Changes to provisional policy be the hub, and then have branches off of that of the form Wikipedia 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 Wikipedia 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) Wikipedia 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^Bori! 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia page, regardless of namespace. Meaning once BLP concerns have been raised, the material is not to be reposted anywhere on Wikipedia 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 ^Bori! 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 ^Bori! 04:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I've added a summary of your comments about which pages aren't good candidates to Wikipedia: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

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, David¹²¹⁷ 23:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: If there was a result they would post it. Where is the result posted?—cyberpower ^Chat_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! David¹²¹⁷ 01:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting started

I just made another post at WP:AN, linked to this page: "With four short months allotted before we have to close whatever community discussion happens, we can't afford a month to choose closers. So far, The Blade and I have stepped up. Beginning a week after the announcement here at WP:AN (so, 03:16 UTC June 30), if there are no objections here or on the linked page, I'm going to proceed with soliciting discussion." I'm hoping Blade and anyone else interested in closing will jump in here too, so that if anyone has a problem with any of our views or plans, we can deal with it sooner rather than later. Four months is not a lot of time to do what needs doing. I don't think it's going to make much difference who the closers are, as long as we/they are honest and committed to respecting the wishes of the community. I'm guessing the best that any closer can do will be to help keep discussion moving forward, not to set the agenda. I have no history with Blade, we work largely in different areas, but I think he's a fine admin, and he was of course one of the closers of the just-completed RFC. As for me, any complaints here or on my talk page will be taken seriously. I can't imagine any other way to play the next four months except to encourage people to try everything, to talk it over, and to have occasional quick votes to mark milestones, before we get to a final vote covering everything in October. I will do my best to keep my eyes open and follow consensus rather than my own views.

Many Option 1 comments implied to me a fear, probably since PC is technically a form of page protection and therefore an admin function, that any realization of PC would necessarily be dominated not just by the "admin culture", but by the worst aspects of the admin culture ... that any serious selection process for reviewers would necessarily wind up looking like (shudder) WP:RFA, that the entire process would invite "admin abuse", etc. I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it but ... I'm going to be astonished if that's what we see evolving over the next 4 months, just because of the raw numbers: there are, possibly, a hundred times as many people active on Wikipedia every day making judgments about the "quality of edits" ... as writers, wikiproject gnomes, articles reviewers, delegates, etc. ... as there are people performing admin tasks. Surely it's the people who have been interested in the quality of edits all along who are most likely to volunteer for PC duty, particularly for those articles their wikiprojects are interested in. I imagine that we'll see people applying to PC all the experience they've picked up from their wikiprojects, from help boards, and from review processes. People already know, or think they know, good edits from bad. And of course, it's impossible to force people to "review for X, and only for X" ... reviewers do what they do, and you can't know ahead of time what problems or questions people are going to have, and you can't know ahead of time how people are going to interpret your "seal of approval" on their edits, no matter what you tell them. We can let people try everything they want to try, we can make suggestions, we can turn the reviewers loose ... and then we can watch, learn, evaluate the results, and vote in October. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a little something that might come in handy. I created User:Beeblebrox/fake blp a ways back as a sort of testing area for evaluating blp vandalism. It's never really been used for its intended purpose, but maybe we should move into project space and use it as a sort of test subject. People can propose various types of edits to it, and we can discuss what a reviewer should or should not do if they saw that edit submitted. We could even actually apply PC to it so long as the log makes it clear that it is being done outside of article space purely for testing/consensus gathering purposes. We won't have to worry about actual blp problems since we will have a completely fake article to test on. Might be a place to start with what I believe is going to be one of the most difficult facets to deal with. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

How can you evaluate BLP of a fake person unless you have fake reliable sources to check? Wnt (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The way it is set up it has Fake refs which users are asked to assume are beyond reproach. A user could suggest an edit and say that it is sourced to a blog, or they could make up a quote from a source and then post an edit that misinterprets or exgaterates the quote hey made up, that sort of thing. It's not perfect but we can't very well start messing with a real blp article, even as a test. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, this is a good idea. I wish like hell we had a longer period of time to run these tests, but I think it might be really beneficial to have such a safe space to experiment in. Probably there should be some sort of consensus for doing it, either here or at the Pump or AN, since the tool is still supposed to be entirely "off", afaik. (Rest assured, I'm not suggesting an RfC on this point!) Rivertorch (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Guys, any thoughts on my last suggestion and Blade's reply at User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012? We're thinking it would be helpful to break the discussion up into subpages. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no objections so far, here's the plan I presented to Blade and his reply:

I've been trying to think of what we might do to keep things moving over the next 4 months, and increase the chances of a favorable reaction to our close, but with maximum guidance from the participants and minimum guidance from us. I'm going to react to what's going on from time to time; the clearer I can be, the fewer "Where did that come from?" comments I'm going to get after our final closing statement. Feel free to adopt a different style. I'm not going to push anything that you're not comfortable with, including in the final closing statement.

I don't think we've done this before on Wikipedia, but then, I don't think we've ever done a good job of un-fubar'ing totally fubar'ed processes, so it's time to experiment. I'm thinking of encouraging people to create a page in either the form WP:Pending_changes/(your username) (with a commitment to at least participate in the main threads that arise there), or in the form User:(Username)/PC (with a commitment to moderate discussions that arise there in a responsible and effective way). These pages, not the main talk page, are the ones that I'd prefer to look at when trying to decide which positions seem to have enough momentum to warrant a mini-vote. That puts the burden on the participants, if they want to be heard, to take the initiative in arguing their positions and in offering reasonable compromises on the main talk page designed to attract more discussion to their personal page. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the subpage idea is great, because that will help make it clear exactly who's saying what. It'll make our lives that much easier, and I think other people will generally appreciate it. Your suggestion about closing and how to respond is also a good idea, in the interest of both transparency and clarity. Hopefully that will lead to less general gnashing of teeth; no guarantee it will, but it's worth trying; better to try and have it fail once than never to try at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, here's my problem with this page's content so far: I can't tell where we're going. People at WT:RFA have a history of coming up with ideas and then failing big-time when it comes to an RFC, but they're the exception and not the rule ... whatever you guys are interested in doing that involves PC, if we can show that we're doing something useful and making it work, there's a very good chance that the community will approve what we're doing and how PC fits into that by the time we get to October. There are many options: page protection has connections to just about everything. Page protection has an obvious connection to article reviewing, except that you're generally trying to find consensus on just one or a few questions, rather than covering everything in an article review ... so, if you want, we could pull in some successful article reviewers and see if we can make PC work as a kind of mini-article review. If you guys are into noticeboards and how they work, we can look at those boards, including obviously WP:Requests for page protection. If you're into the general question of why big RFCs seem to suck so much, we could tackle the problem of making RFCs more rational. If you want to look at specific problems with the draft version of PC mentioned by opposers in the last RFC, that works for me. Whatever you want to do is fine ... but so far, I can't tell. What I can tell you is: the people who show up and put in the effort are the people who get to make the calls. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dank: I also agree with your proposal above. I do have a question though. You say "...offering reasonable compromises on the main talk page designed to attract more discussion to their personal page". What do you mean by the "main talk page"? Do you mean this page? This seems like a reasonable place, but it still seems like most of the discussion is still centered around arguing about the RFC closure. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree its a good time to create a specific page for discussion regarding the switch on, this will assist avoiding any sidetracking of the much required discussion - Youreallycan 17:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant this talk page. There has to be a page where anyone can say whatever they want, and it may as well be this one, but this page won't be useful for some of the things people are likely to want to do. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Like Youreallycan, I think it would be a good idea to have a specific page for the policy discussion, mostly because there seems to be a lot of irrelevant stuff going on here. I'm fine, however, with having the discussion start out here (it's on a lot of people's radar) and then moving it elsewhere if it gets too cluttered here. I'm going to boldly create Wikipedia:Pending changes/Adjwilley since WP:PC is just a redirect. Sound good? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I've got it watchlisted, and if people prefer WP:Pending changes/Adjwilley to WP:PC/Adjwilley, I'll make the change in my suggestion above. - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Worst case scenario, I have to move it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input but please do not create such an article at this time (or later without support from other users) - lets get a little more feedback - and we don't , shouldn't have a single users name in the discussion title - regards - Youreallycan 23:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The page I created is not meant to be the main/discussion page (that's here for now), but a sub-page for my personal drafts of the policy that can be discussed later on the main page. If you think it shouldn't exist, I can try to move it to my sandbox for now, without a redirect. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you've got the right idea ... create a page, talk about what you think is most important, see if anyone is interested. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly support proposal suggested by Dank. Prefer WP:PC/(your username) over User:(Username)/PC for several reasons. I'd suggest a new central page—something like WP:Pending changes implementation 2012—since we'll be working on a process deriving from the RfC and not the RfC itself (also, I imagine we may want both a talk page and a project page, and the project page attached to this page is neatly bundled up at a manageable size). Rivertorch (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - Sound like the way to progress - Youreallycan 11:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so far we've got one page in the form "WP:Pending_changes/(your username)", is that format acceptable to everyone? - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the subpages idea, but surely it will be a nightmare for you to close? —WFC— 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea is that you guys will vote with your feet, by participating in whichever of the pages seems most relevant. We'll turn the most active page into the first mini-RfC; that will let us get those issues off the table, then we can look around and see what the next page is that seems to be attracting attention, and so on. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I feel silly now for changing the format at the last minute now (PC-->Pending Changes). I did it on a whim because I didn't want to have a subpage of a redirect. Sorry.

Another alternative to what Dank suggested above (closing at the sub-page that gets the most traffic) would be to have the central page WP:Pending changes implementation 2012 with a master list/summary of all the sub-pages, have the mini-votes at WP talk:Pending changes implementation 2012, and then perform the close there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I suspect the placement of what goes where doesn't matter a whole lot, as long as we don't wind up having to do complicated page moves or something like that. We do need to have a directory of the subpages somewhere. I've created Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Rivertorch, fwiw. Nothing to see there yet. Rivertorch (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Further thought on my suggestion above for WP:Pending changes implementation 2012. Maybe it should be WP:Pending changes/Implementation 2012 instead. At the moment I can't think of the pros and cons of subpages, except that shortcuts don't necessarily work properly with subpages, but it probably doesn't matter. Rivertorch (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the WP:Pending changes/Implementation 2012 idea better too. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:13, 3 July 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)

I also don't support spreading the discussion to lots of userpages or topic areas, although opening a discussion thread to get a bit of feedback on wikiprojects might be worthwhile to get a bit of feedback - but many wiki projects are wastelands or worse so I personally wouldnt bother - any user that feels its important to discuss the implementation and his project can and likely should open a discussion locally to get feedback as to how best they can use the tool and then lobby the central discussion page in regards to their position. /vacatingI support leaving this page and creating the implementation page Wikipedia:Pending changes/Implementation 2012 and moving focus and giving publicity and encouragement to users to comment there- Youreallycan 12:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of questions will be cleared up after the page is created and the discussions start. I understand the concern of a fragmented discussion; I think it will start out that way, but will eventually coalesce as we continue. I'd like to start with a "shotgun" stage where we can get wildly different, but well-thought-out ideas from a bunch of people. We do need to keep things organized, though, and this would be done at the "directory of subpages" on the main page. (We could even transclude the various subpages onto the main page, into collapsed sections, of course, for easy browsing.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear ... I don't mean for votes to happen on the subpages, and I don't mean to hide important questions on subpages. One of the problems with PC, for years now, has been the sheer volume of things to consider and voices to be heard. To keep the conversations manageable, I suggest that anyone who wants to can create a page like Adjwilley and Rivertorch have. That way, people can enter or leave the conversations of their choice as they like, and add one objection or one topic at a time as they like, until the participants think they've covered the bases enough that they're likely to be successful when they bring their proposal back to the main talk page ... and I agree, that won't be this page. A separate point: for PC to work, people need to actually do the work. If you give someone the impression that we'll happily accept their grunt work, but we're not interested in any of their ideas, they're unlikely to put in the time on the grunt work. The trouble is, if I try to say something encouraging to anyone who speaks here, for the purposes of keeping them engaged, that's going to take us off in so many different directions that few people will be able to or want to keep up with everything on the page. Encouragement works much better when it's targeted to subpages. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I can tell now, there's consensus to create Wikipedia:Pending changes/Implementation 2012. If nobody gets to it first, I'll plan on doing it as soon as a third person creates their user sub-page, so we can at least have a concise list of the sub-pages somewhere, and a place to talk about them when needed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you feel about WP:Pending changes/2012? Possibly easier for the casual editor to find, or remember. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I quite like - implementation - perhaps add scope - that will get users interested to come and look / comment - Its not really Pending changes/2012 as that would also imo include the RFC ... Wikipedia:Pending changes/Implementation and scope 2012 - I am not really bothered so much, but whatever attracts as many users to come discuss and suggest ideas is fine with me. Youreallycan 05:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I now see there are a huge number of subpages of WP:Pending changes .... would it be okay to name the subpages WP:Pending changes/2012/(your username)? - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To me, the most intuitive location for the subpages would be to have them be subpages of whatever the main page is. So if the main page were Wikipedia:Pending changes/2012 then my subpage would be Wikipedia:Pending changes/2012/Adjwilley. Perhaps this was your intention when you suggested those locations? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Last question before I create the page: does anyone mind if we use the subpages to work up proposals, hold votes and general discussion on the talk page (WT:Pending changes/2012), and save the project page (Wikipedia:Pending changes/2012) for whatever the community seems to have agreed to in the series of votes, as closed by Blade and me? - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I had in mind. Votes and general discussions on the main talk page. I'd like to have a directory of subpages on the main page, as well as some instructions for creating the subpages and some words about the scope of the project. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, there's a problem I just noticed ... whenever you edit any page that begins "WP:Pending changes/" or "WT:Pending changes/", there's a kind of heavy-handed set of instructions that I don't think is appropriate for this phase of discussions. To avoid that "edit notice", I've moved the relevant pages to the page that I had picked out as a handy shortcut, WP:PC2012 (and WP:PC2012/Rivertorch, etc.). Is that okay? - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I preferred the previous locations, because they were in the hierarchy of WP:Pending changes and it was immediately clear what they were about. Another way around the edit notice would be to edit the notice itself. I don't think there are any RfCs going on curently, and now would be a good time to tone down the notice a bit, since it's obviously affecting a lot of pages. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to change the editnotice as part of a general strategy to leave all the previous pages (including even editnotices) exactly as they are; it will help people figure out what came before, and why, if they're looking into the history. And if the editnotice doesn't change, I'd rather we not be saddled with it. Is "PC2012" unclear? Is there a better name? - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC) I'd also like to reinforce the view that we're starting fresh here, and all comments are welcome.

I dunno... WP:PC/2012? That still keeps us in the PC domain, but manages to avoid the edit notice. Ironically, it also comes nearly full circle to your original recommendation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC) As appealing as "starting fresh" sounds, I don't think it is entirely accurate, since this re-writing of policy is a direct result of the 2012 RfC.

Hey, if there's a rule that I have to be "entirely accurate", I'm bailing right now! - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we should decide on something quick and then stick with it. I preferred most of the options above to WP:PC2012, but you can do as you see best. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:27, 5 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)

Oops, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wtf

Some questions:

• Why wasn't this closed "no consensus?" How is:
  1. 66% enough to end the original pending changes trial and deactivate it, but
  2. 61% enough to finalize implementing pending changes?

If 61%'s ok to creep the consensus standard down, then are we going to revisit the failed RFA archives to promote some people to help out with the increased workload that this will bring? Actually, we might as well start with that now, considering there are constant backlogs at:

• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (backlogged as of me typing this, and I'm gonna be one of the small few who try to clear it),
• Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests (pending edits backlogged since June 19), and
• Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests (pending edits backlogged since June 25)

It'd be better to get the help lined up long before we add even more to all three backlogs. Also, if people voted for pending changes and don't actually help with aforementioned backlogs, was their contribution toward this consensus weighed equally, or was armchair quarterbacking taken into account? Will it be taken into account in the future?

• Where was consensus determined on the implementation dates? Were they decided for us without the community's input? Did the closers not consult the actual pending changes developer to see if those deadlines could even be met? Hint: they didn't.
• Finally, why do I have the feeling this closure was less about what was said and more about what the closers wanted?

Am I missing something here? --slakr^\ talk / 04:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that nobody else has responded yet, because of not wanting to engage in a discussion centered on whether the closers had an ulterior motive. I would be willing to respond to your other arguments if you were to strike the final bullet point. —WFC— 19:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes- imo that comment is a personal attack WP:NPA - from the administrator User:Slakr - and he should strike it asap - The primary position here is as always has been - a vocal minority oppose pending changes - the time has come to move on from their objections and focus on how and where we are going to switch the tool on and the vocal minority should move to that position as well. -Youreallycan

Not many of the opposers are going to be happy with the recent closing statement, so unless the supporters are making an effort to keep welcoming their views into the discussion, lots of them will stay away, and some will be combative. Gnomish editors (I include myself) tend to stay away from those jobs where they have as much chance of getting trouted as getting barnstarred, so if PC is going to get the manpower it needs to work at all, we're going to have to fix some problems. Fortunately, we've got 4 months to try things and watch what goes wrong ... and that's another reason we need solid participation from opposers, because they're probably going to do the best job of noticing what's going wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not minority opposes of Pending are happy with the result (those guys need to get on-board - the wheels will not drop off) -WP:Pending changes will be implemented and contained at a level of reviewing that is comparable to the contributors active in WP:Reviewing - Youreallycan 20:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Speak for yourself and not others, YRC. I've made it explicitly clear that, aside from RfCs and discussions on its existence, I want no part of FlaggedRevisions or derivatives thereof. This has been stated on my talkpage for a long while. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I speak for myself and the consensus - you are one of the users that has strongly opposed Pending changes - you want no part of it - so - that is fine - no problem - Youreallycan 23:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Slakr, short of presenting two shrubberies of different heights for the terrace effect and chopping down the tallest tree in the woods with a herring, I'm not sure what else we need to explain. We evaluated strength of arguments and independently came to about the same conclusion. The implementation dates are partially a request from the devs, who really don't want to have to deal with this over the holiday season; of all the people on Wikipedia, I know better than almost anyone what happens when you anger them, so we decided that doing something to aggravate them wasn't a good idea. And certainly you know that this isn't the same as an RfA; I'd really like you and everyone else to stop using the straw man of RfA, which has a defined, agreed-upon definition of consensus. RfCs have no such defined idea of consensus, so admins are allowed to use broad discretion. And finally, I will say this as loudly as I can, just so it's obvious; I DON'T PERSONALLY CARE ABOUT THE USE OF PENDING CHANGES . That's why I signed up to close this; I've never had any opinion on it. I didn't participate at all in the voluminous discussions prior to this, as I thought I'd have no problem going along with whatever the consensus turned out to be. When I went to close this, I had the same basic attitude; I'd advocate to close it with whatever consensus I found. And before anyone thinks I'm losing my mind, please read the commented out sections I left; it's a sense of humor like Neil Peart describes here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Blade, for the humor. I don't think assuming bad faith on the part of the closing admins is going to get anybody anywhere, and I don't think any further discussion on that is constructive. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL... a personal attack? :P I take it we haven't met before. :P If you knew my history, including my relationship with Fluffernutter and DeltaQuad (among others), you'd see that that's totally not the case. Rather, people subconsciously see things a certain way if they're already pre-disposed to it (see also: confirmation bias). It's not a character trait; it's a human psychology thing, and even I'm susceptible to it. If someone's already got an opinion on a matter, they tend to look for confirmation of it. It could particularly factor in on issues of borderline consensus; hence the reason it was even a point. Is that what's at play here? Not sure, but I nonetheless "have a feeling," mainly because of the number/outcome differences. --slakr^\ talk / 03:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

...and before someone assumes bad faith at the term "bias," it's a psych and decision-making theory term—not "bias" in the sense of "zOMG teh cabalz bias!" (i.e., not the negative connotation). --slakr^\ talk / 03:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comments in this discussion embody almost everything that is wrong with adminship today:

• Assumption that those who do not close according to your wishes have ulterior motives. (your final bullet point)
• Assumption that anyone who does not share your point of view is biased. (your more recent comment. I accept that you can accuse bias without bad faith – that doesn't make it intrinsically constructive)
• Refusal to accept any element of wrongdoing, however blatant that element is. (your refusal to retract your final bullet point)
• Misrepresentation of percentages. (For starters, 65% indicated a wish to return to PC at some stage: even that statistic makes the assumption that every option one supporter is irrevocably opposed to PC in any form)
• Comparing apples – the decision to terminate the trial – with oranges – this RfC – to support a conclusion which may or may not be nuts. The trial could not have been terminated without the backing of pragmatic PC supporters, who recognised that there were errors in process and gaps in policy which could most easily be sorted out once PC was deactivated. I should know, I was one of the very first to support a turn-off.

It's your decision whether or not to withdraw your comments about the closers in particular. It's your decision whether to clarify that you do not think they acted in bad faith or with intentional bias. But if you decide not to, I can't see this discussion going any further. —WFC— 07:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Your comments in this discussion embody almost everything that is wrong with adminship today This is another good example of the confirmation bias: someone (me) tries to explain what they meant in what turned out to be an ambiguous situation, but then someone else uses their preconceived expectations of the situation (or someone's behavior) and sees something different. Indeed, despite me saying that I assumed no intentional bias, and despite me foreseeing someone saying the same thing you just said (and trying to account for it), you still seem to feel that I didn't address things that I thought I clearly addressed, or, at the very least, not to your expectations. At this point, I don't feel there's anything for me to do with regard to your concerns.

But that's a digression from the issues at hand, which are more important.

2. As to the allegations of false analogy, I don't believe they're warranted—especially when the issue involves a supposition of, at the very minimum, stare decisis with regard to the traditional thresholds of numeric consensus in similar situations. On a related note, this is why we've traditionally deferred to bureaucrats or arbitrators to close contentious, broad-action RfCs—but not a single one was involved in this closure.

...but this still doesn't get to the root of the problem and the meat of my concerns, however. I didn't really have time to fully explain in my initial posting, so I'll do that now:

First and foremost, there have been a plethora of statements/essays made by people over the years on the subject of "consensus," and the ones that most stand out to me are the ones that allude to the !vote-but-still-vote nature of them. In this particular case, the reason I'm most concerned with the number side of things is that when nearly 40% of the encyclopedia(!) gives a flat-out "no" to a proposed change that necessarily depends on their voluntary manpower to successfully implement, there will be significantly greater problems with successful implementation when we ignore the comparably higher standards of numeric consensus that we most often use. Why is this? The answer is simple: you literally cannot force volunteers to help with something they don't want to help with, and when nearly 40% of the encyclopedia clearly doesn't want to adopt or help with something, there's likely going to be a serious problem.

This is why I nit-pick, and this is why the numeric threshold for consensus is traditionally much higher for broad changes like this. Even at 75%, you're still talking about one-quarter of the volunteers disagreeing with something (and in some instances, vehemently so). At least with RFA (~75-80%), if people disagree, they can simply ignore the admin or deal with what they think will be problematic down the road (and they're definitely not going to storm off the encyclopedia because of it), but with something like pending changes—again, something that requires the cooperation and motivation of the entire volunteer community—not just people who like the idea—lowering the standards for consensus actually is a big problem and remains ultimately counter-productive: you can't simply ignore pending changes, and you're literally forced to make the choice of whether to stay on Wikipedia (and presumably "play the game" of reviewing and declining edits), avoid all pages it's applied to, or leave once it kicks in.

That is why I'm a stickler about the numbers—and in my opinion, justifiably so—at least, in this particular case.

--slakr^\ talk / 20:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Blade and I are just lowly admins and not crats or arbs ... nevertheless, unless there's a run on people signing up to close within the next six hours, I'm going to consider it semi-official than you guys are stuck with us, that we'll have to overcome our humble origins and close the next phase :) I can't take sides of course, but I'm very interested in what you're saying, Slakr, particularly the part in bold. A general comment: I'm totally behind the "no one's in charge" spirit of Wikipedians, but I am not at all on board with "... and therefore, you can't hold me responsible". A lot of Wikipedians act like the second part follows from the first, and it doesn't. If the next four months, doesn't go well, and if Blade and I didn't do everything we could think of to turn things around, then we're responsible for our actions, and inaction. Period/full stop. One thing we can do that isn't normally done, and Blade is on board with this, is that we can tell you which bits look interesting to us and what we're learning. When you read a closing statement, you shouldn't be thinking, "Where did that come from?" We both want to give you guys enough clarity at every step so that most of you can already guess what's coming. Of course, there's a real danger to that: we don't get to set the agenda and also get the last word, that wouldn't be helpful or fair. We need to respond, not to lead. Which means: you guys need to lead, forcefully and persuasively, and organize what you're saying so that people can follow it. We'll help you do that. More to come, in six hours. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"40% of the encyclopedia" didn't do anything. 40% of the self-selected users expressed an opinion. And we've learned something about self-selected users in this sort of discussion over the years: opponents of change are far, far more vocal than the proponents. Proponents, in turn, are far more vocal than the average user, who frankly just doesn't care one way of the other.

I'll give you an unrelated example: Consider the people who commented on an early version of the WP:Article feedback tool. Anti-change people were loud and regularly rude to the WMF staff who were testing it. About ten of them showed up to complain in the early months. About ten people who liked it showed up to express varying levels of support. So the community's opinion is split 50-50, right? But you'd be wrong: during that time, hundreds of users actually used the tool, and a survey of those users showed more than 90% of them supported it (the rest split between dislike and indifference).

You can't assume that 40% of those who were passionate enough to express an opinion translates to 40% of the whole community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Slakr, Waid is right. Granted that a large number of users did participate in the discussion, but all in all maybe 600 registered users, out of what's easily thousands of users registered or otherwise, commented. I will agree the percentage should have been higher (The original "straw" poll was aiming for 66%), but to argue one way or another, on the basis of any of the PC RfCs and straw polls individually or combined, that the majority of the community accepted/rejected it is bollocks. At best, a majority of a specific subset of users accepted/rejected it. I have little doubt the sections of the community that weren't enfranchised (i.e. anons) or who don't give a rat's ass about the politicking that this whole fucking process turned out to be (i.e. everyone who didn't comment despite having the ability to) have their own opinions on it, and they may or may not mesh with the given consensus. But to say the "community" had its final say when a massive portion of it was barred from the Senate floor is fallacious, to say the least. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's reasonable to say that there are conservative elements around who simply oppose any and all changes, but the applicability of that assumption narrows rapidly as the sample size increases beyond a few dozen. In the case of popular proposals such as this one here, support is cheap, whereas critical thought is not.   — C M B J   04:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Step-by-step defence of the closure

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 encyclop[a]edia".

Nonetheless I recognise the concerns that more reasonable users have raised, so will try to explain why I think the right closure has been reached. I'm going to sign at regular intervals: that should give people ample opportunity to comment on specific points in specific places.

The permutations were infinite, but in my opinion the three umbrella closure options were:

1. Close in a manner which clearly indicates that the community is against PC, and as such believes that these discussions should now stop.
2. Close in a manner which clearly indicates that the community is in favour of PC, and as such believes that future discussions should focus on how we intend to introduce PC, rather than if.
3. Close as no consensus.

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) Assuming that you agree up to this point, logically the options would then have been between a "no consensus" close of some kind, or a "let's attempt to move ahead with PC" closure of sorts? —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(continued from above) For disclosure, I consider myself to be "cautiously in favour of PC". I justify this claim on the basis that I argued for the trial to be terminated, and as an option 3 supporter in this RfC, wanted further discussion on how PC should be used before going full steam ahead. I believe that under the right conditions, PC can be better than the status quo, but that the status quo would be better than a free-for-all determined at the whim of individual admins. While on the face of it I should be jubilant about this close, in practise I am worried about what would happen if the deadline wasn't met.

Back on-topic, it is likely that most people opposed to PC would attempt to make a case for no consensus, and most in favour of PC would argue for moving ahead? —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously. Given how much this issue has suffered from internal politics (Devs refusing to shoot unless we give them the word, the several different polls/RfCs) I would even argue that determining a consensus is impractical at best given the circumstances. You're always going to have a subsection of the community who doesn't like a change and won't play ball with it, and given that PC has had an overextended trial that refused to be shut down, a very biased straw poll put together by a supporter, and two highly contentious RfCs, there is no way this was going to be a clean-cut close. Sure, I'm mad about it, but given PC's polarizing nature, it's fair to say this is the best any side can hope for. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:13, 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, almost-but-not-quite certain, that in the event of a no-consensus closure there would eventually have been future RfC on the reintroduction of PC. It is equally probable that if that were closed as no-consensus, there would eventually be another one. Based on what has happened in the past, I would guess at 12–18 month gaps between big RfCs, although there might be smaller scale ones in between. —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This is also true, and odds are it would be started by a PC supporter. Given that the organizers of this one were "neutral" and the poll still turned out to have problematic design, I shudder to think what one of those would have been like. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:13, 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)

Again, as with all things in politics, this is true. However, as PC relies on people to work, this is a significant problem for it since, even if we assume that not everyone who votes no refuses Reviewer rights, that's still a sizeable bloc of people refusing Reviewer rights, or, worse, deliberately fucking with the reviewers. Also, it's "ideological". —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:13, 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)

IF THEY WANT TO. This cannot be emphasized enough. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:13, 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)

Again, true because of politics, given that a large proportion of opposers do not want PC period. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:13, 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)

Not likely given that PC is contentious enough that none of the four polls/RfCs on it have hit 66%. In fact, the lowest% close was Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage, with 59% in favor of continuing the trial; the highest was the 2011 RfC at 65.8% in favor of ending the trial. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. Although it would be misleading to use the figure from the trial's end as an indication of opposition to PC. That closure was simply a recognition, from supporters and opposers, that it was unacceptable for a trial as contentious as this to overrun, and that progress could not be made until it ended as previously agreed. You said "Time to reset to the status quo and assess the trial, then make a final decision after we're better informed.", which I believe reflected the mood from many on both sides of the discussion. —WFC— 22:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That was not the point I was trying to make with my comment here. I am well aware the reason the "trial" (more like fiat policy implementation) was shut down was because people from both sides came together. But even then the RfC still did not hit 66%. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:44, 2 July 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)

(continued from above) The community has in the past shown a willingness to turn off PC, if it is deemed to be causing more harm to Wikipedia than good. If PC is introduced it seems likely that it will be here to stay, but it is entirely possible that PC could be turned off again if things do not go well. —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(continued from above) In summary, it is my opinion that in a high-traffic RfC, it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a majority who want PC killed off forever. Without one, I don't see how this issue is going to go away: it would be outrageous to mandate that a discussion be killed off without some form of community majority backing that decision. On the other hand, with 64.6% of contributors indicating various levels of support for PC in this RfC, and with 66.7% and 70% being talked about as potential numerical barometers of consensus, it does seem plausible that in future a PC policy would be deemed to have attracted sufficient consensus to implement immediately. Also worthy of consideration is that the community has in the past showed a willingness to turn PC off, meaning that while if turned on PC would likely stay, there is no guarantee of permanency if it is a train wreck.

Taking all of those things into account, I truly believe that this close was the least-worst option for the medium-term future of Wikipedia. Sorry about the length of this post: hopefully it will seem less daunting if people start responding to individual points. —WFC— 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• The problem I have with this is that we did not have consensus for Option 2, and yet now, the ad hoc terms of Option 2 written by three editors, mostly one, are defined as the default "no consensus" option for subsequent discussion. As you know, the power to define what "no consensus" means is the power that determines what happens on Wikipedia, since there almost never really is one. And in this case, what that means is acceptance of a policy that probably is more extravagant with the use of Pending Changes than even some of the Option 2 voters would have wanted. Specifically, I suspect that roughly half of all voters would favor a mild model in which any editor with over 300 edits gets reviewer rights automatically, like in the de.wikipedia flagged revision scheme, and since this is a less radical change than making reviewer rights a rare and prized plum handed out by admins to their friends, that should be what is favored in a 50-50 split. But I expect that unless we literally get 66.6% of voters to say that (maybe not even then) the ad hoc policy will be preferred over that. Wnt (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's "no consensus." I really don't know what's so difficult about this. 61 or even 65% isn't normally enough for "consensus" on major policy revisions on this wiki. To say "it's okay" to lower it to create and enact a wiki-wide policy is and will continue to be wrong in my opinion. And for people who like to say "oh there will always be resistance to change," remember this: I voted to try out pending changes from day one. I thought it would be a great companion to page protection. Then, out of experience of its effects, I voted against it this time around. Since it's obvious there are people intent on shooting down any resistance, so be it. Just hope that I'm wrong—it really is as simple as that. At least I tried to warn you of the problem, so past that, there's really nothing else any of us can do. Some people are simply dead-set on pushing this through, and wasting time dealing with this is almost certainly more stressful than just letting it happen and picking up the pieces later. Good luck; I'll be sure to stay out of your path. --slakr^\ talk / 00:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Slakr. I was initially in favor of the PC trial, because it was possible it could've worked, and if so, hey, why not one more tool in the toolbox? But in practice, it didn't. So first, we then had people ramrod through continuing the "trial" with essentially a majority vote, when we'd been assured it would be stopped after three months. It took plenty of time, but we finally managed (after more than a year, if I recall correctly, though that's a rough guess), to get the "trial" to actually end. I think that should've made it clear that we don't consider simple majorities sufficient for such a major change. At that point, there were several common positions:

• • PC was fine as it was then, and should continue into full use.
  • PC was an irreparably bad idea, and should never be used.
  • PC could potentially work decently, but its current incarnation was unworkable, and it would require technical and/or structural improvements prior to use.
  • PC was technically and structurally sound, but we had no firm policy regarding its use, and would have to gain consensus for such prior to any implementation.

At the new RfC, the "fix PC prior to use" option, despite how common it was, was totally disallowed. The rationale for this was that WMF had stated that it was unwilling to do any more work to PC prior to implementation. However, this was nonsensical, since WMF isn't the only one that can—as a part of Mediawiki, PC is open source software, and anyone could volunteer to do any improvements deemed necessary prior to use. WMF's involvement would never have been required, and so "Fix prior to use" would have been a perfectly valid option. If no one were willing to volunteer, or no volunteer(s) got the work done, that would then indicate that we would not have used PC. This likely suppressed a significant number of those who would have commented, because they were forced into one of two sections, neither of which was what they actually wanted. This was also unfixable, since unlike in normal RfCs, the addition of more sections was essentially prohibited. That made this exercise into a vote, not a discussion, and exacerbated the issue of those who had more nuanced positions than a "Yes" or "No".

And then even at a yes or no vote, with a significant portion of the opposition suppressed, the discussion could not even reach the level of support required to make one user into an administrator, a discussion with far less far-reaching effects. This was a pretty clear "no consensus for change, retain status quo" outcome. But more importantly, it was a badly designed RfC that didn't account for a variety of opinions, and instead tried to put the wide range of thoughts on the topic into a couple of little boxes. That's exactly why we avoid vote-type setups.

The other significant failure is that implementation was separated from the "yes/no" aspect of it. If we can't come to consensus on how PC should be used, we should refrain from using it at all, not implement it with some type of "default." The two should have been part of the same discussion, since unless we can answer with a strong consensus "How and when shall we use PC?", we should not ask for it to be turned on whatsoever.

Closers are not here to supervote, even for very good reasons, or to attempt to read/predict the future. They are there to determine whether or not there is sufficient consensus to implement a particular change, considering appropriately that bigger changes require a greater proportional level of support. Here, the outcome would've been an outright "fail" for an RfA, not even within discretion. Since an RfA is a much lower-magnitude change, this proposal definitively failed to gain consensus. I'm not sure why there's been such ramrodding of the PC issue both at the trial and here, and the closers of this discussion are about the last I'd ascribe bad faith to, but they're also the last I'd expect such a clearly flawed judgment from. I'm not really sure what to think of the whole thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My guess is, given that Blade has commented a few times about not pissing off the developers, that it was closed this way specifically so that the devs didn't get butthurt and so that the questions about how the RfC was organized would cease - the handlers have been criticized for this situation from Day 1. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll try again; the time frame we put on this was at the recommendation of one of the developers. That was only after we had made the major determinations, and it was literally a couple hours before we closed it that one of them suggested we stick a time on it. That's the extent of the role it played here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

By doing so, you've effectively put the cart before the horse and pretty much ensured even more questions for this close. There are substantial concerns over the fact that improving it was not an option (which would definitely have alienated several would-be !voters), and given that people have expressed that the proposed policy does nothing to address the major issues that even supporters note need worked on, it's impossible to look at the situation and not think you're doing this just to appease Devzilla. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:07, 3 July 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)

Beeblebrox, I'd very much like to hear from you why you decided to exclude the idea of improvement before use, since you are incorrect in the above. Mediawiki, including PC, is open source software. Therefore, anyone, not just WMF paid developers, could have volunteered to do any required improvements. If no one were willing to, and the community found that improvements were needed, why should we use it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Filing RfArb

I'm filing a request for arbitration in an effort to clarify whether Blade's close was indeed kosher and, if not, what should be done after. I will link when it's up. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And it is up. I have only listed the closers as parties for now since the only thing I filed the Arbitration request to contest is the close. This doesn't preclude others from adding statements, bear in mind. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't see them taking that up - but lets see - if it helps opposer's get on board that would be a benefit - I have at times on this wiki been so certain I was correct and discussed and attempted to sway opinions but when finally the close is made and it has been against my position I have accepted it and put my objections to bed - that is what we need here - and then we can move to implementation and scope discussions. If fact we should press on with discussions regardless of this request for arbitration. Youreallycan 06:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If they don't take it up, then the community needs to go even one step further and have a discussion about how dubious RFC closures should be formally reviewed.   — C M B J   11:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

All I see are four of the prominant objectors to pending changes refusing to accept the outcome of a community discussion - in which hundreds of users commented over months and that was closed by four experienced administers. - sadly rather than aacept that outcome and get onboard with working together to discuss scope of implementation it appears filibustering and astroturfing are to be the order of the day, Youreallycan 11:40, 5 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)

I find this filing absolutely ridiculous. Yet another editor who believes their views overrule consensus.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting to know that having contributed two sentences to this RFC inherently qualifies one as a "prominent" and "vocal" commentator.   — C M B J   22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a WP:DRV-ish "Consensus Review" process that could be used instead? If not, then we should create one. A process to obtain a "second opinion" would be valuable to the project. I hope that ArbCom doesn't accept this case. If ArbCom accepts this case, then ArbCom would be taking a major step towards becoming GovCom. ArbCom isn't here to decide consensus and make policy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd actually venture to say that even if they do accept the case, the community should still pursue establishing a proper (orderly, open, defined, and limited) peer review platform for contested RFC closures.   — C M B J   22:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that having something to review RfC closures would be good. See also User talk:Jc37#Arbitration on Pending Changes RfC close. Yaris678 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My intent was to have the close reviewed, not to stymie PC. At this point, I've come to expect that no matter what the arguments, no matter how loud the opposition, I cannot trust anyone pro-PC to actually abide by mutually-agreed terms. (And before you ask, they brought the bad faith on themselves.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Filing RfArb was rejected by the Arbcom

• - diff

Just to note the request by User:Jéské Couriano for arbitration regarding the close of the RFC was refused by the Arbcom - Youreallycan 06:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Survey

We should host a survey or poll asking the following question: Are you satisfied with how the 2012 Pending Changes Request for Comment was closed? Please explain why. A bot should then be used to notify the participants of the RfC. The data from the survey could then be used to determine whether the 2012 RfC concluded properly and satisfactorily. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I can already predict the rough opinion; about 310 people are going to say they were satisfied, about 180 people will say they weren't, and there will be a 15 vote swing either way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess what you mean by "survey" is a sort of RfC on the RfC. Go for it. Formerip (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that will probably happen. It's unfortunate, this seemed like an obvious "no consensus" to me. Aaron Schulz 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• This type of filibustering and creating of uneccesarry procedural hurdles is what ruined the 2011 RFC and made it necessary to create the restrictive format used in this process. The time for moving backward i over, we need to move forwrd. I again appeal to any and all interested in moving forward to disengage frrom discussions analyzing or contesting the outcome. We don't need to particpate in them, despite the objections this thing was handled properly. We are only wasting time by arguing on this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a joke. The result is what it is and a rerun would come out the same. People need to accept and move on. If they don't work on the process the draft policy will be put in place which needs work done on it. No point wasting time on a pointless exercise given 4 good admin co-ordinators came to the correct conclusion based on the figures.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing "ruined" the 2011 RfC". It may have been messy and convoluted, but it actually provided a good example both of meaningful discussion and a well-reasoned close. While I was sympathetic to your desire to create a less messy, convoluted process in this RfC (and I remain so), I do not believe it was "necessary" to have a format so restrictive that it essentially guaranteed the outcome you favored by subjugating discussion to the vote (and I don't mean the "!vote"). A whole lot of editors, including every single Option 1 endorser, chose to participate in the RfC you designed, despite its flaws. We did "move forward", in other words, and we did so with good will towards you and, at least in my case, with a sincere hope that the participants would somehow find a compromise that everyone could accept. Sadly, that didn't happen.

While I may disagree with the closers' decision, which presumably gave you everything you wanted (except perhaps an immediate turn-on date), my objection to the close isn't the decision itself but the sloppy, haphazard justification for the decision. That took me by surprise, and that I find so difficult to accept that, after much consideration, I made my first-ever post to an ArbCom page. Would I have requested ArbCom involvement? No, and I advised one editor against going that route. But my continued willingness to "move foward" shouldn't mean that I have to keep silent about what I see as a major failure of the RfC process (and perhaps of the larger community itself). We can either acknowledge our mistakes and keep them in mind so as to avoid repeating them or we are almost certain to repeat them. I'll move forward towards the future and I'll speak up about the past when I think it's warranted. I find it a bit disappointing that no proponent of PC, however happy he or she may be with the latest RfC's outcome, has seen fit to publicly entertain the possibility there might be anything wrong with the way that outcome arrived. Rivertorch (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I probably can't say anything about the close without causing at least a perception of bias in one direction or another. I absolutely can say that I would like to avoid even the appearance of fumbling around, much less actual fumbling around, in my closes, so I'm taking people's complaints seriously. I think my best bet is to be open about what I'm thinking at each point, so that people can correct me as we go if I get off course. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:PC2012

It looks like the close is going to hold up, so I'd like to invite any interested editors to join in the next step of the process: defining the policy. If you think PC is broken, here's your chance to fix it. If you like PC but think there are problems with the provisional policy, we need your participation. Feel free to check out WP:PC2012 and the associated talk page, and comment if you like. Over the next few weeks/months we will be having a series of mini-votes there that will probably affect the future of PC. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Separate policy or part of PP?

This might have been settled on another page, but the only issue that I think absolutely must be decided (as opposed to all those that should be decided) before roll out is this: whatever the contents of the "PC policy", will it be part of WP:Page protection or on a separate page (making it our 56th separate policy)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's not too complex, then I imagine it will get added to WP:Page protection at some point. It probably wouldn't make sense to move the discussion that's currently at WT:PC2012 to that page yet. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet another RfC

The first in a series of Requests for Comment is now open at WP:PC2012/RfC 1. The purpose of these RfC's is to fix some of the potential problems with the provisional policy before pending changes goes live again at the end of November. Anyone is invited to vote in these RfC's, and your participation will be appreciated. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• The next RfC is up at WP:PC2012/RfC 2. There are more questions to this one, and it will likely affect the policy more than the last one. As always, everyone is invited to participate. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)