Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Moved from

hate. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 06:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, I expect this would be called something other than "pending changes" if this proposal is accepted, to distinguish from PC1 applied to pages. Ivanvector (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of this, but it's definitely technically possible. Permission to have edits accepted could be given to the * group, and $wgRevokePermissions could be used to remove it from a new group, which admins could add to trouble users. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll note that I said this: [1] before the discussion was hatted and then moved here. As for the revised iteration, I'm unconvinced that sockmasters really need this as opposed to a block, and I'll also note my earlier observation that this proposal won't work well for IP editors or newly-created accounts. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sockmasters, I meant to assume good faith but actually I don't really see how going to the trouble of creating multiple

SPAs to push your agenda and/or circumvent policy could possibly be in good faith, so I agree with you there. As for IPs, I think this would be preferable to blocking, especially for shared IPs, IP ranges and such, and for new users I meant it as sort of a gentler sort of mentoring block, for problematic users who genuinely want to contribute but don't know the rules. Ivanvector (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

For example, quite some time ago I came across a user who had enough good edits to be autoconfirmed, but had also added some inappropriate external links to several pages, links to instruction guides and product catalogues. They were on-topic and not promoting anything in particular, they just didn't understand the purpose of linking to external content. The user quickly hit 3RR versus the bot that removes those links and was blocked with a talk page full of dire warnings, ending with a bitter post-block comment from the editor about unfriendliness to new users and cabal-ism and what-not, and never came back. I think that if we had a process that was less harsh (more friendly) than warning and blocking, more users would improve and stick around instead of getting frustrated by what could be minor mistakes. (Your interpretation of minor may vary, but I think this was an easily-corrected problem that got out of hand.) Ivanvector (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As another example, I read an AN/I case a while back about an editor who had been around for a very long time and had many good contributions, but had developed a bad habit of wikilawyering; the user was always civil, but was often the only user arguing their

Moved from User talk:Jackmcbarn

 – Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were the closer of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013, can you read Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 to see if your close being interpreted correctly? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the note.

The close in this case was reflective of the discussions noted in the close, and shouldn't be considered restrictive on what may or may not be discussed in a future RFC, such as the current one you note.

So while the new RfC may have been intended to discuss "...criteria for its use...", the previous close doesn't and shouldn't prevent other things being discussed.

That said, if the community decides that that RfC page should stay focused on criteria, and thus that other questions should be split to one or more separate RfCs, that is of course at the community's discretion.

I hope this helps clarify. If not, or if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.

Thank you again, for the note. - jc37 17:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was open discussion about Pending Changes in 2011, the time before PC instructions were made and before PC2 was discouraged for now. If all proposals fail, shall there be more discussions on Pending Changes lv1 and/or lv2? --George Ho (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think PC level 1 is a "done deal" and has been for some time. If you want to start a proposal to get rid of PC1, you can use the

Village Pump just as you would any other major proposal such as, say, getting rid of page protection altogether or conversely fully-protecting every page. As for PC2, I would assume that if all proposals fail to achieve consensus including the "anti-PC2 proposal" #4, then the status quo from the last RfC continues in force. This would likely mean a redo of this RFC minus those proposals that clearly failed and possibly plus totally-new proposals at some later date, probably 6-12 months down the road. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

More proposals won't help; they will likely fail. Open discussion should come first. That led to successful PC1. Why not discussing PC2 without proposals? George Ho (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been difficult getting closers for some of these thornier RfCs, and we sometimes get a long wait and a perfunctory closing statement that doesn't move the process forward. Any objections to posting a request for people to sign up as closers at

Please do. I would like the closers to have the time to study the arguments and not feel rushed. Ozob (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it's going to be tough finding folks who haven't expressed an opinion on the matter. Hobit (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Hobit. Other than newcomers to Wikipedia who may not be aware of the internal politics and the people who want the internal politics to die in a fire, there is almost nobody who hasn't either commented in or closed at least one of the RfCs. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support Dank's idea, and would suggest trying to get a panel of three closers, in order to increase community confidence in the result. Although I realize that it will take some looking to find people who are genuinely uninvolved, I'm not worried that it would be prohibitively difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be out of line to advertise for closers on other large Wikipedias, with a notice that anyone wanting to volunteer have the necessary user-rights and experience on the English Wikipedia to qualify as a closer? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that I have expressed a desire either way. I believe we should have a triumvirate of closers, and I would be willing to be one of the 3 ES&L 13:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you cannot find 3 who are willing to close, I would be willing to help close. But if you do find 3, let them : ) - jc37 14:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe I've expressed feelings about PC on-wiki, and just checked and definitely haven't voted in any of the RfC's about it. I have the downside of having been an admin for like a week, but have plenty of prior experience evaluating consensus, and would be willing to be one of the three given that finding three uninvolved closers on an issue that has been this long-running may be difficult. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While having expressed an opinion on-wiki is certainly important, the more relevant thing is if you can keep your own preferences away from the close and instead read the consensus. I that hard to do with things I care about, so if you do have a strong opinion one way or the other, you might not be a good closer. (Note: I've no idea if you do or don't, just your phrasing made me suspect you may have a strong opinion...)Hobit (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a particularly strong opinion, and can certainly keep whatever opinion I do have away from reading whatever consensus (if any) gets established. (In fact, I'm sure I have any particular opinion right now. I remember leaning one way - slightly - two years ago - and basically not following the issue since.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the notification at

I asked one, so I should probably ask all. Do either of User:EatsShootsAndLeaves or User:Jc37 come with strong opinions (expressed or otherwise) on this issue? Do you believe whatever opinion you do hold you can hold separate when judging consensus? I realize that asking is a bit redundant to you stepping forward, but since I did ask one person, it only seems fair to ask you both those two questions. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. That said, just as I noted previously, see also my comment about transparency here. - jc37 07:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than accidentally applying it a couple of times, I cannot think of anything I've ever said that could be construed to be a "strong opinion"...or even that I hold any specific opinion whatsoever, so there's nothing to get in the way ES&L 11:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry to potentially beat a dead horse, but could you point out where you'd applied it in the past? Hobit (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ES&L, there were three cases of you using PC2, and at least one case of you letting it sit for 2 weeks and not changing it even after you were made aware there wasn't consensus for using it User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 11 (search for pending). Though you set the "illegal" level on accident, you seemed to favor keeping it there until someone pushed pretty hard. I was hoping you could address that. It could be read as showing pretty clear opinion that PC2 should be used. Hobit (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice AGF. "Can't be arsed to fix it" is not the same as "a clear opinion that PC2 should be used". Nice use of "illegal" to make it look all scarey too. DP 09:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a reasonable issue to raise. Sorry, illegal was poor, I was using a shortcut to not have to say "which doesn't have consensus" again. I strongly suspect I'm going to be taking a long break from Wikipedia after this because I seem to be being an ass a lot recently. And my attempts to beat around the bush haven't helped. So: do you have a strong opinion on this topic? If no, great. Hobit (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reasonable issue to raise at all. And your use of "illegal" was intentional, with the obvious goal of bringing the same furor that erupted at ArbCom last week into something as simple as "meh...it's not hurting anything right now". I clearly advised above that I have no specific opinion - stop badgering ES&L 11:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, please step back, close your eyes, and take a long deep breath.

Hobit, maybe you should start your long break from Wikipedia right now. The RfC is ending, so you can safely leave Wikipedia aside and go back to the real world.

ES&L, your responses have sounded very defensive to me. You don't need to defend yourself, regardless of his motives and his questions. A fair close speaks for itself.

Ozob (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rough tallies.

• P1 45-25. Take off the "early" !votes from before Prop 4 was added to the list: 28-22. Analysis is needed to see how many of the 26 who favor Prop 4 have already opposed Prop 1 and add in those that didn't explicitly oppose. Best case: 28-22. Worst case: 28-48. I'm not sure I would consider a 6-!vote, 12%-margin majority a WP:Consensus. If it is one, it's not a strong one.
• P2 46-13. Take off "early" !votes from before Prop 4 was added to the list: 34-11. Worst case 34-37. This likely has a majority support but does it have a broad WP:Consensus? This may depend on how strong a consensus we need to move forward.
• P3 failing badly
• P4 26-17 (this is the "anti-PC2" proposal). Given that at least 34 clearly support some form of PC2, this proposal is far from reaching majority support much less consensus.
• P5 10-11
• P6 withdrawn
• P7 17-3, dependent on another proposal passing
• P8 failing
• P9 dependent on 8
• P10 not a proposal
• P11 failed/closed
• P12 too new

If these numbers hold, we could have anything from "no proposal has a majority, including the proposal to not have PC2 at all" to "P1 and/or P2 have a slim majority but consensus was not achieved for either one, P4 did not have a majority much less consensus" to P1 and/or P2 achieving consensus and it or they along with P7 being rolled out in the near future. This will depend largely on whether the supporters of P4 have explicitly opposed P1 and P2 or whether their implicit opposition needs to be added in to the raw tallies. Of course, these numbers may not hold, as evidenced by the change from the previous snapshot-in-time status report posted earlier on this talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually find such analyses especially constructive on RfCs that have more than two weeks left to run. Still, I must say that seems like a very strange interpretation of the numbers. P4 is the basic proposal that asks the fundamental question that needs to be answered before any of the other questions are considered. (For that reason, it should have been posed first, and its late arrival and placement, buried well down the page, has undoubtedly led to a lower response rate.) If P4 passes with a decent majority and compelling rationales, it should serve as a "master switch" to make the other questions irrelevant. You said that, as of now, P4 is "far from reaching majority support much less consensus". To the contrary, P4 has majority support among those who responded to it, while those who opposed it have minority status and are much, much further from consensus.

RfCs should be neutrally worded, should not based on false premises, and should be written so that the central question is asked first. Trying to decipher what a given !vote means shouldn't be necessary. As I tried to note several days ago, this RfC's design is deeply flawed. It appears expressly designed to bring in a majority !vote for PC2, and I can't deny that the results to date can be interpreted to suggest it has succeeded in its apparent objective. But the results shouldn't be interpreted in that way. If I were an uninvolved closer here, I'd certainly take the "loaded question" design of the RfC into account. One thing I'd be very curious to know is how many people who supported some of the other proposals (particularly P1) took it on faith that "consensus to allow use of PC2 has been achieved", as the introductory wording claimed, and !voted based on that (mis)understanding. Rivertorch (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rivertorch, you must be new to the PC discussion. Pretty much every single RfC with respect to PC has been biased in favour of PC. Doesn't stop them from being seen as legitimate, especially by the people who believe time limits don't apply to them. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the closing statement of the most recent RFC as well as skimming the RFC itself and, while I agree it can be interpreted the way you interpret it, the most obvious reading is that the question of "should we have RC2 in Wikipedia" has already been answered in the affirmative. Perhaps many of the editors who you see as "taking it on faith" that "consensus to allow use of PC2 has been achieved" are not taking it "on faith" but like me have done at least a little bit - if not a lot - of homework on the issue and have come to the conclusion, correct or not, that "consensus to allow use of PC2 has been achieved."

I guess the one thing that is clear is that the neutral closers will have to either get clarification from the closer of the previous RFC or they will have to re-review the previous RFC to determine if "Proposal 4" really is a "central question." If it is NOT a "central question" - and I believe it is not - then any combined amount of support in this RFC for PC2 counts as an implicit "oppose" of Proposal 4 (unless of course the editor explicitly opposed - no double-counting!). Likewise, whether or not Proposal 4 is "central" as you suggest, support for it is an implicit oppose for any stand-alone proposal on how to implement PC2. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 08:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly of the opinion that Rivertorch is right--this was a badly worded RfC that made claims that simply weren't true (or at least not clearly true). It really should have been clipped in the bud and a neutral RfC put in its place. And no, "should we have PC2" has not been answered in the affirmative. What's been answered is that we should have it if and only if we can find consensus for a policy. At the moment I think that consensus is lacking. Hobit (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's been answered is that we should have it if and only if we can find consensus for a policy. This is how I see it as well. The original purpose of this RFC, in my mind, was to propose policies that would either turn "if and only if we can find consensus for a policy" into "Now that we have a policy..." -or- if we cannot agree on a policy, maintain the status quo and come back in 6-12 months and try to find consensus for a policy again. With proposal 4, things got complicated. However, since it's obvious that more than a few editors read the previous RFC differently (specifically, they do NOT read it to say that the community agreed in principle to adopt PC2 on the condition that a future discussion come to a consensus of when to use it), having proposal 4 is important to reduce (I wish I could've said eliminate, but I can't) the thoughts that they were being railroaded and/or that the editors who didn't participate in the previous RFC were being sold on the idea that "the community had agreed in principle to implement PC2, but not how to do so" even though, in their minds, this is not a true statement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier,

WP:VOTE, so there is probably little to be gained by updating the numbers. And as for reconciling Proposal 4 with the other proposals, I trust the closers to be able to figure that out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hate to piss you off, Tryp, but every single RfC up to this one has been a fucking majority vote. No RfC with regards to Pending Changes since the straw poll on interim usage has achieved a 2:1 super-majority (66%), and PC was turned on with a 61% vote and what amounts to dev blackmail. (See the

kerfluffle on VE for how well that turned out when the devs tried to pull that stunt again. I'll wait.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Nah, it takes a lot more than that to piss me off! Anyway, I still trust the closers to judge what consensus is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit odd, and perhaps even scary, that none of these proposals come with examples of where, in the past, using PC2 would have been a good idea and allowed under the proposal. Could folks supporting these proposals come up with examples? Especially proposal #1 and #2 (which seem the most likely to have a chance of passing). What I'm looking for is specific articles at specific times where PC2 would have been allowed and useful. Hobit (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was my point in submitting proposal 12: that in the absence of any example cases, there is no currently foreseeable situation where PC2 is always a better option than existing tools, so there is no current general criteria for its use, but it is available as an option if discussion on a talk page leads to a consensus for its use on that page in the future. I think it's the "we can't predict the future" option. I may not have worded it well enough. Ivanvector (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples where PC2 would have been used under Proposal #1

Examples where PC2 would have been used under Proposal #2

Aaron Schock would have been semi-protected and under scrutiny of reviewers. Recent gossip compelled editors into adding such rumors as "significant" to encyclopedia. --George Ho (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 2 sets of pages that are or were under PC2 and 1 page where it was seriously discussed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab-Israeli War

• 1948 Arab-Israeli War was set to semi+PC2 in Jan-Feb. 2013. PC2 was removed as "out of policy" and it was under full protection from Feb-May 2013. The PC2 protection was initially per bold action but endorsed (with significant opposition) and extended by this AN discussion, Jan. 2013
  .

In your opinion, would NOT using PC2 have been better for this article? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• PC as a whole should not be used on areas that attract obscene amounts of partisans, such as the Israeli-Arab Conflict, because there's way too much risk of abusing PC to

  hold an article's content hostage. This was largely brought up in the various RfCs turning PC on, for Chrissakes! —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The real solution to problem users is blocks and bans. The example edit that I gave above came from a user with an open SPI, and once that was discovered the edit was rejected. This particular area is and will remain extremely difficult, but the only way to fix user conduct problems is to pursue the users causing the problems. PC2 doesn't do that. PC2 is much more akin to airport security, where everyone is inconvenienced and the determined are not stopped. Ozob (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First York et al

• Transdev York
  was under semi+PC2 in Jan-Feb. 2013. It was converted into a redirect per an AFD in January.

In your opinion, would NOT using PC2 have been better for this article? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is the simplest case of the three that you've given. Here we have a persistent sockpuppeteer, willing to make autoconfirmed socks, with an obsessive focus on York, particularly its bus routes. PC2 cannot prevent him from creating (and recreating, and re-recreating) new articles about bus routes in York. Only blocking and speedy deletion can stop that. Nor can PC2 prevent him from editing pages about York bus companies; those changes aren't immediately live, but all he has to do is get an unknowing admin to accept them. While that didn't happen when the articles were under PC2, he has tricked others into restoring his preferred version before [2]. So I don't see what benefit PC2 would confer in this situation. Ozob (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Block+CU with semi-protection would have done the job, since autocon-busters by their very nature are of little threat to articles (admins react very swiftly to them and they are almost always thoroughly CU'd on request). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pixie dust. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Your argument is invalid as experience has proved time and again the only people who make accounts for the specific purpose of vandalising semiprotected pages are established sockpuppeteers, as an escalation after their usual targets get semi'd. Checkuser is more than happy to ID and block any ranges the socks are using, as well as the socks themselves. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How—exactly—would PC2 have improved on the crystal ball? Ozob (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York University Polytechnic-related

Here is a page where there actually WAS a serious discussion about whether to protect the page with PC2 but ultimately there was no consensus to use it. The arguments in the page may prove useful.

• In late 2012 and early 2013,
  List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people were under full protection due to persistent edits by not-yet-blocked sock and/or meat-puppets. See SPI, long term abuse, and WP:AN/PC2 for Mangoeater targets
  . It's unclear whether reviewers would have the knowledge to recognize and "decline" such edits, but if they did and if the puppetmaster and his puppets would have "given up" if their edits weren't "live" then PC2 would have been better than full protection. Some might even argue that it would have been better than semi-protection in the weeks leading up to the time that full protection was imposed.

In your opinion, would using PC2 have been better for this article? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes. Nyttend's reply to one of the Oppose !votes basically sums up my opinion of almost all of them: "So a lack of consensus is reason to oppose an attempt at getting consensus?" Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is, of course, just as valid as anyone else's. Considering that your account is only six months old, however, I cannot help wondering whether you have sufficient perspective to realize exactly how much frustration the myriad attempts to get consensus on all things PC have engendered in the WP community. We've had years and years and years of this—variations on a theme involving PC proponents using various tactics, many of them far from irreproachable, in attempt after attempt to prove there's consensus to enact a protection scheme they favor but which a large number of editors find anathema. To be sure, I don't doubt that many pro-PC Wikipedians have been equally frustrated at the obstinacy of the opposition. (Not that that's any excuse to cut corners and sneakily load the dice when setting up RfCs, mind you.) I'm well aware that the community's opinions can evolve—and concurrence even can appear out of thin air—but it seems to me that endlessly proposing similar plans and thus wearing down one's adversaries isn't the best path to consensus. Acquiescence, perhaps, but not consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited here as an IP long before getting an account. Anyway, I wasn't trying to "sneakily load the dice" with my RfC. That's how I legitimately interpreted the last close. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My questioning of your perspective was based in part on what you said about consensus, which struck me as facile. Most of us edited as IPs before getting an account; many of us did so extensively. So what? While I value the thoughtful opinions of all contributors, IPs included, I find it curious that someone with no track record of participating in past discussions about pending changes is willing to be so dismissive of the legitimate concerns expressed by a multitude of Wikipedians, many of whom are on record as talking about this stuff for well over half a decade. Rivertorch (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Block+CU is, once again, the medicine here, as the CUs have no qualms about checking anyone matching the MO of a known long-term abuser. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, at least I wasn't convinced by the discussion that PC2 would have worked better. Judging by the history, there was one person behind a very large number of socks, and one user struggling to keep up with the mess who then became the target of attacks by the sockmaster. Since the master's edits would have likely appeared legitimate to some uninvolved reviewers, most likely some of the edits would sneak through, and it doesn't seem like this person's primary intent was to be disruptive, just to skew POV, and were obviously not deterred by having to jump through additional hoops to submit their changes. Full protection stopped it; as soon as FP was dropped it started up again. Very few, if any, constructive edits whether under FP or not. However, I do like that options were discussed, since FP shouldn't be used long-term but this is clearly a very bad case. Ivanvector (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the reviewed aricle/edit proposal. It's not fair to people actually trying to learn to have to write down false information, unbeknownst to them, and get an F. The editors should have to review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrythetomato (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should indicate your opinion of the proposals in the appropriate section on the RfC's page. Here, it's not even clear which proposal(s) you're supporting. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that reviewers are not necessarily reviewing for factual accuracy. Please see WP:General disclaimer. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from my talk page. Ozob (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

In Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014#Oppose (Proposal 12) you said "If PC2 is a useful tool, then it should be applicable to a different range of articles than FP, so a page having had FP should not be a necessary criterion for PC2's deployment."

I read this as an categorical statement, not one restricted to "Proposal 12."

I replied using the analogy of full protection being like a "big hammer" and PC2 being like a "small hammer." There is at least one proposal that would allow or even encourage the use of PC2 instead of full protection for some pages that, today, are under full protection.

I believe that even if PC2 is only used on pages that would, under today's rules, be fully protected, it is still a useful tool because in some cases where the current best tool to apply is full protection, PC2 is a better tool. That is what I meant when I said I disagreed with you.

While I currently think we should be conservative and only use PC2 on pages that would be fully protected under today's rules ("Proposal 2" comes very close to this), I'm open-minded enough to consider other possible uses. However, I'm a "hard sell" when it comes to putting PC2 on a page that under current rules would have a lower level of protection. In other words, I'm all in favor of decreasing a page's protection if it can be done without defeating the purpose of the protection, but I am generally against increasing a page's protection unless all less restrictive forms of protection would be inadequate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was, yes, to make a categorical statement about the utility of PC2. I suppose that it's possible that the appropriate use case of PC2 is limited to "pages that were full protected, and seem to have calmed down so that we don't want full protection anymore, but we don't trust them to be un-/semi-/PC1-protected", in which case my specific objection to Proposal 12 is irrelevant. But I don't think that small case would justify the increased complexity and bureaucracy that would come with PC2.

Proposal 12 aside, I am against PC2 in all cases because I don't think that it will have a positive effect. I don't think it solves the problems a page actually has, whether they're vandalism, copyright violations, BLP violations, edit warring, sockpuppetry, or whatever. Its weakness is that the root cause of all these problems is people, and PC2 does nothing to address people. Full protection forces editors to stop whatever it is they're doing; changing the page requires either gaining consensus and making an edit-protected request, or displaying calm, adult behavior for long enough that the page protection expires and is not reset. Whereas under PC2, editors can continue their same wrongful behavior. The fruits of that behavior won't be immediately visible to the public, but they can always hope that an unknowing admin will accept their edit; and if their edit is rejected, they can always try again. Put a different way, PC2 answers the question, "How do we make sure that the public does not see our internal disputes?" It does not solve any dispute itself, so disputes will continue unchecked.

For this reason, I think it is a much better use of our time to use full protection, blocks, checkuser, and all the other tools that we currently have. I'm willing to admit the possibility that I'm wrong, but I won't be convinced of it unless and until someone can produce an example of a page where PC2 is the right solution. I've asked PC2 supporters for examples before, and I've never seen one that I thought held up. Always I'm told examples of user conduct problems that deserve blocks. Sometimes they're widespread enough that the page should be under full protection for a little while, but PC2 (without blocks) would never have helped. So as far as I can tell, wishful thinking aside, PC2 is not a solution to anything. Ozob (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry to butt in on your conversation here, but I appreciate this discussion and thought maybe I could elaborate. Like Ozob, I am against all of the currently proposed criteria for PC2 because I think existing tools already handle those problems effectively, or as effectively as PC2 would, plus PC2 does not address problematic users. My idea behind proposing that FP be applied first is that in many cases where a page gets to FP, there are editors involved who should be warned, mediated or mentored, or blocked, and issues that should be talked out on the talk pages, and that applying FP and forcing those actions solves (maybe temporarily) the vast majority of problems, even very serious ones. I fear that allowing PC2 to be used instead, or if the problems tick certain boxes, won't deal with those issues that do need to be dealt with, or they will just keep coming back when FP is dropped. However, allowing PC2 as an option after following FP would make it available for maybe stepped-down but still fairly high protection if editors feel the need. FP appears to be very rare already, and I expect that this use of PC2 would be even rarer still.

Also, would you consider moving this to the RfC talk page, or to discussion under proposal 12? I think it's worthwhile for other editors to see this discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't anticipate that this would be a long discussion, but now that it is, I agree. Ozob, if you are willing, please copy this to a new section on the RFC talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzing Proposal 1, there are no fewer than 28 participants who did not comment:

Three observations here.

The first is that, as of this posting, Proposal 1's degree of numerical support decreases from 51:29 (64% support : 36% oppose) to 23:29 (44% support : 56% oppose) when adjusting for

The second is that, as a trend in this broader debate, positions perceived as popular tend to increase in momentum while others tend to produce significantly more critical discussion per participant. This is evidenced by the above metrics from Proposal 1, which I had to verify three times because I found it so improbable that there could really be a statistical disparity of 28:0 in a discussion of this scale.

The third is that, in the future, critical RFCs like this one must more prominently advise participants that they should strive to contribute meaningfully to the discussion when possible. This could perhaps be most effectively achieved through the use of edit notices.   — C M B J   06:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of rationales to back up their position is a particular problem for the pro-PC side throughout preeeeeeeety much all the RfCs on the subject, though I will say some anti-PC people are also as guilty. My guess is because there was only one RfC that wasn't done with PC on (the one that turned PC on for good), meaning "PC on" was more or less the status quo. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know NOTAVOTE, but 28 people's opinions still matter even if they didn't give a reason. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they matter, but the ultimate purpose of an RfC is to gauge consensus, not to line up warm bodies on two opposing sides. A support vote with no rationale can't easily be translated into consensus – it can mean "Support for reasons I've articulated elsewhere", "support for reasons articulated by other participants in this discussion", "support for no good reason", "support because of the bandwagon effect", or many other things. So while such votes matter, they matter less. And that's just as true of opposes with no rationale. Ozob (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that there's no reason. It's that many times the reasons have already been said. However, I have added a rationale at your request. Also, don't think the opposes were all that good. Half of the rationales were broken English saying things like "Autoconfirmed edit live." Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 16:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What world are you living in? I don't see anywhere approaching 10%, let alone half, in broken English. There are a few typos, but nothing clearly broken. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a figure of speech. Not literal. Anyway, a number of the opposes, not the majority, did not make sense or were policy-violating. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start giving examples, Ramaksoud2000, or pipe down. Again, I don't see anywhere where an argument not based in policy has been made. Both sides are arguing with policy and good points on their side: Pro-PC is citing

WP:BLOCK, as well as real concerns with overuse. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Given that community consensus determines policy, I am not sure that it's possible for an opinion to be "policy-violating"; if that opinion were consensus, it would be policy. Ozob (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your reasons for supporting have already been stated, we don't know they're your reasons unless you say so. Thank you for clarifying your !vote.

Also, I would recommend not publicly judging the quality of the oppose rationales. That's the job of the closers; they can evaluate our grammar if necessary. Ozob (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, when I support without comment, it's because it's shorter than saying "support [copy-and-paste entire proposal here]" or "support [I'm too lazy to copy the parts of the proposal I like, but rest assured they outweigh any parts I don't like and I'm consenting to accepting the parts I don't like]." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that on a Request for Comment is that such !votes tend to be meaningless because they're not giving a reason *why* they're supporting, i.e. they're not arguing for their side - which is the entire point of an RfC. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of an "ideal RFC proposal" that is an idea that has wide support and is so well written that nobody has anything to add, under today's system you'll probably get 75%+ "*Support" with only a small number of those editors saying anything. Let's say such a proposal gets 150 "Supports" with only 10 substantial comments in favor, and 50 "opposes" half of which have new substantial comments and the rest are either "per so-and-so" or simple "Opposes." Would you declare that RFC failing because "only" 15 supporters said anything of substance (okay, 16, if you count the RFC author) and 25 gave substantial reasons to oppose???, and everyone else either had simple support/opposes or just said "per so and so" or something similar? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the context. Under such circumstances, an RfA candidate would likely fail. Wikipedia works remarkably well for a community that operates under consensus, but this consensus requires community participation and discussion. An unjustified !vote doesn't further the community very much. Ozob (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Votes without rationales sometimes are ignored," as per our guideline, and when they are considered it is with the understanding that they are of limited value in most circumstances. The merit of 10 exceptional rationales may very well take precedence in a discussion with 100 participants and this propensity is what makes the consensus model so uniquely effective.   — C M B J   08:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This thread may be of relevant interest here, especially the comment made at 19:46 Jan 30 2014 (UTC) by Guy Macon. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An issue was recently raised that some people who supported proposal #4 but didn't oppose proposal #1 (for example) may not have their vote counted. I've added implicit oppose lists to several of the proposals to address this issue. For this purpose, I considered proposal #4 to conflict with #1, #2, #3, #5, #11, #12, and #14. (The addition of the list to the RfC page has been reverted, but it can still be seen at User:Jackmcbarn/PCRFC implicit oppose.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against this since this is a Request for Comment. !votes, even implicit ones, with no rationale behind them should not be taken into account. (Not to mention 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, or 14 passing precludes 4 passing anyways.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any harm in showing the closers that information. Also, it could make a difference in which ones pass. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The number of implicit opposes for 4 is almost as long as the !votes on it combined, and as it is number 4 is near no-consensus. It wouldn't affect numbers 1 or 2 as even with implicits those are likely to pass anyway, going from experience. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The number of implicit opposes for 4 is almost as long as the !votes on it combined" That means it is likely to have a large effect on #4, as it seems to bring it from no-consensus to failing badly. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because a no-consensus on 4 means it fails anyways. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, what's the harm in showing it? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It adds literally nothing to the RfC. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not doing harm. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I've never seen this done before in an RfC, and I'm not sure whether all of the editors named as implicit opposers will be entirely comfortable with it, but I'll agree with Jackmcbarn that there's no harm in it. Jeremy, a no-consensus on 4 should mean it fails anyway, but I think we both have seen enough novel closes by now to know that "should" doesn't always mean "will". Rivertorch (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of all the PC RfC closes I have seen (and discounting the 2011 Phase 3 RfC), anything that isn't clear-cut anti-PC is going to fail, and anything pro-PC that gets proposed early is guaranteed to pass. Even if that weren't the case, you just restated precisely what I said: no-consensus positions on RfCs generally are automatically failing, so the implicit opposes on 1, 2, and 4 do nothing for them as they're all either passing (1, 2) or failing (4) anyway. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention I got into a shouting match with

David Levy (talk · contribs) on a far earlier RfC about something similar. You're implying opposition where none may necessarily exist, thus creating false priorities in the consensus. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there a different way I could convey the information without implying that? I think the lists could be useful to the closers. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, unfortunately. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) I don't like this idea of implying meaning where there is none. You listed me under implicit oppose for proposal 4, which is not correct. I struck my support for prop4 given that other proposals exist which I could support, but I certainly don't oppose the non-use of PC2. And I didn't see where you listed implicit support for proposal 4 based on editors opposing all of the other pro-PC2 proposals. I say let the closers figure this out, we're not neutral. Ivanvector (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"And I didn't see where you listed implicit support for proposal 4 based on editors opposing all of the other pro-PC2 proposals." I didn't do this because it's possible that somebody doesn't like any of the current ideas for PC2, but they're not against PC2 in general. (After all, I clearly shouldn't add implicit support for all pro-PC2 proposals just because of an opposition to 4). I'm keeping everything I'm doing symmetric to be as fair as possible. With the issue of your particular !vote being incorrect, if you support a given use but also don't oppose #4, your best bet would be to change your #4 !vote to "Conditional support I'm okay with proposal N, but otherwise against PC2" or something to that effect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I'm not entirely sure that I agree but I'll do some thinking about how I would restate my position. Ivanvector (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps implicit opposes could be listed in a separate section at the end of the page? (Sorted by proposal, of course.) Ozob (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. I've set that up. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I care about whether this information is on the page or not, and honestly I don't see what the big hubbub is about it. The things I was offended by was the fact that the list made the page 25% longer, and I' rectified that by putting each section into five columns (not sure why section two only has four columns, the template specifies 5). What I will say about this proposal in general though is this, with 15 different proposals, I can't see there possibly being a consensus to use any one of them, and that being said, the status quo is to use none of them. Like I told someone who asked me to look at this section yesterday, I would request a close at this point to identify the 2-4 (I said 3 specifically) most supported of the 15 proposals and have this RfC closed as a new RfC with those being the only options will be run with all participants of this discussion being notified. Kind of like a "sudden death" RfC... But, I'm sure there are many that think this is the dumbest idea I've ever had (and I'll admit I've had some pretty dumb ones). Anyways, good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• coming out on a regular basis. The RfCs need to stop, or at least take a hiatus. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The last RfC opened 8 months and closed 6 months before this one opened. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't preclude the fact that there's been at least one RfC, if not more, every single year about PC, all of which have been poorly-written and poorly-planned. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jeremy: Hear hear. I'd vote for their stopping, but if it must be a mere hiatus I hope it's a good long one. Rivertorch (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with having these lists on the page, and I think the objections to it were making too big a deal over it. But I also think that we all need to realize that the decisions about how to evaluate the discussion rest with the panel of closers, and no amount of opinion expressed here is anything more than the opinions of the editors who said it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's a given that when three contradictory positions receive majority support that there is no consensus for action. It's one of the defects of putting out a poorly-constructed RFC: the efforts to remove the bias wind up with a muddled mess. A bit of care in making certain that proposals don't overlap and that everyone feels like their perspective has been taken into account goes a long way towards getting a meaningful result.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• From the original straw poll by Off2riorob to today, there has been no RfC on the issue of PC that hasn't been initially written to be biased towards one side, and then tried to be passed off as "neutral". This RfC is no different; Position 4/"0" didn't exist originally and was added after the RfC started. Part of the issue is that every single RfC on the topic has been written by a pro-PC user. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, the neutrality of this RfC depends on how you interpret the close of the last one. Also, re "every single RfC on the topic has been written by a pro-PC user", there's no reason an anti-PC user couldn't have written this RfC. They just didn't, and I thought it was time for one, so I did. Okay, that made no sense at all. Trying again below. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "[...]there's no reason an anti-PC user couldn't have written this RfC." Your logic eats itself. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• /me chuckles "there is no reason an anti-PC user couldn't have written a RfC requesting implementation of something they don't want." wait... WHUT!? Technical 13 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no reason that people with black eyes and multiple bruises couldn't have beaten themselves up. But why would they? Rivertorch (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I couldn't have been any less clear. Here's what I was trying to say: the only reason all of the RfC's have been written by people in favor of PC is that the people against it don't want to write them, so it's not fair to say that the RfC's are biased because they're written by people in favor of PC. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I've thought about running an RfC to request that the devs turn off PC and/or PC2. But I've always thought that it would be inappropriate to do that until we had gone at least a full year without a PC RfC (and then I'd have to remember and be in the right mood). PC proponents seem much more excited about fighting to use it widely than I am about fighting to turn it off. Ozob (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @ Jackmcbarn: Never mind who wrote them. Many of the RfCs have been biased because they were not neutrally worded and/or their design was such that the responses were inevitably weighted in a certain way. One way. The pro-PC way. Rivertorch (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And that's actually a rather important distinction, to my way of thinking, because I have considerable respect for some of the people involved in past RfCs on this topic. I think they were dead wrong in advocating for PC, and I think they displayed less than stellar ethics in constructing the RfCs the way they did, but I know them to be capable editors, fair administrators, etc., in other areas of the project. It reminds me rather of politics: good people working for positive change but willing to cut corners to get there. The end rarely justifies the means, but people forget that, and it causes much resentment. Rivertorch (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The series of RFC's in 2012 were written collaboratively, with Rivertorch being one of the key drivers (and I don't believe his views can be characterized as being purely pro-pending changes). Like many long-term discussions, the small number of editors who participated in their writing hampered their development, but I believe within the available constraints they did the best job possible to pose clear questions to achieve a clear sampling of opinion. isaacl (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral section

I've added a Neutral section to each of the proposals, to address the concern that some people may want to remove themselves from the implicit oppose list for a proposal without supporting it. I've moved PaleAqua's !vote for proposal 5 to that new section, since it's clear-cut. Ivanvector and Novusuna, your !votes for that proposal aren't as clean, so please move them yourself if you want. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your edits, thanks. On prop3 I didn't make any comments before today because the proposal was

snow closed and I prefer not to modify past discussions. I specifically oppose it, for what it's worth, so I added a comment. On prop5 it reflects my view as is so I haven't changed it. Ivanvector (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you strike "since "implicit oppose" script makes neutrality now not a recognized option" from the !vote? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ivanvector (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, Jackmcbarn. I've tried to clarify my position on proposal 5. Novusuna ^talk 04:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit that I made: [3]. Given the complexities of template updating and transclusion, I want to make sure that it doesn't get overwritten. Please understand that I feel very strongly that it misrepresents what I have actually said, and put time and effort into thinking about it, to present me as merely having "supported conflicting proposals". I knew what I was saying, and I believe that the other editors listed there did, too. I do realize that this was a good faith error in wording, and there was no bad intention. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing a script to allot !votes irrevocably taints this request for comment. This particular process of seeking consensus is a caricature of any decision making process I've seen in any other forum. Is it common in wikipedia.en? And I believe I would seen see it in the same way no matter what my position on the proposal, proposal, proposal...n - Neonorange (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, and skews the RfC even more towards pro-PC. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the very least, I think it's perfectly defensible for some of us to have said that we have serious reservations about PC2, but if it does end up being enacted, we would prefer to see it enacted one way rather than another way. That's not a contradiction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say your opinions were contradictory. I went out of my way to avoid saying that. What I said was that the proposals you supported were contradictory, so the rationales should be read to figure out exactly what your opinion is. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you reverted my change, because, whether you realize it or not (and I do recognize that you did not intend it to sound disparaging) it does sound disparaging. I'm going to make another try at revision, but if that doesn't work, I'm going to insist that the whole thing be moved from the page to this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept your wording but made two minor grammatical changes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We're good. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A sort of mirror image of this issue occurs to me. It's not something that I want to make a big deal about, but I think it's worth a brief mention, and maybe a quick thought by the closers. There are also users who oppose PC2 who are opposing everything about implementing it, on that basis. Something that gets lost in that is that some users oppose specific proposals because they oppose the whole thing, but other users oppose specific proposals because they prefer other proposals. That situation may obscure the ways in which some criteria for implementation are preferred over others. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a bunch of Support/Oppose/Neutral questions that all hinge on a premise laid out in the result of the first question makes for a very poorly formed RFC. Take a look at how the AFC Reviewer permission RFCs have been very narrowly scoped every single time so that each RFC builds on the results of the previous RFC and is not mixed in. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've already largely established that every single PC RfC is poorly formed. The only major difference is the degree of fuck-up. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True (to Hasteur). Of course, what's done is done, and I figure it's worth trying to identify potential points of confusion before they create further confusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only way such confusion could have been completely avoided here would have been to begin with a simple RfC that asked the question: Is the use of PC2 permissible under any circumstances? If the answer was no, then no follow-up RfC would have been required. If the answer was yes, then the conditions for use could have been determined. Rivertorch (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't have flown for the Pro-PC crowd, who's more or less arguing from a position of strength by virtue of being the only party who wants to press the issue. They treated this as a foregone conclusion, and it shows in the RfC design, which is deliberately muddied in favour of the positions they want. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree with you, although I tend toward

gullibility when it comes to the "deliberately" part. Rivertorch (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I cannot assume good faith towards pro-PC editors, period. The fact that that page even exists should be the only testament why. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rivertorch:As Jéské Couriano said, it wouldn't have flown with many users. It wouldn't have flown as written with me because after examining the most recent RFC before this one, I believe that as of the close of that RFC, there was a consensus to allow PC2 subject to as-yet-to-be-determined conditions. Obviously, other Wikipedia editors read the same RFC and came away sincerely believing there was no such consensus. For me, proposal 0/4 is important only because consensus can change. If this RFC had been run shortly after the previous one, I would have objected to Proposal 0/4 as "out of order, consensus recently established, consensus doesn't change that fast, attempting to re-open the question is disruptive." Thankfully, that wasn't the case and I could politely disagree with my fellow editors who read the previous RFC differently than I do and accept the validity of Proposal 0/4, just for a different reason than they do. The only way a stand-alone "is PC2 okay" proposal would have flown with me is if it acknowledged that in the eyes of many editors, the previous RFC decided the answer was yes. Something like

• Due to a dispute over whether the previous RFC closed with a consensus that PC2 was acceptable, the next RFC will be run in two phases. Phase 1 will be a simple up-or-down question of "Should we proceed with plans to enable PC2 on the English Wikipedia. A consensus of "no" will terminate all existing plans to use PC2. A consensus of "yes" will result in an immediate followup with a "Phase 2" RFC to decide the conditions under which PC2 will be used. A close of "no consensus" will result in re-running this "Phase 1" question not less than 6 months after this "phase 1" RC closes."

Unfortunately, I and probably the person who started the current RFC was not aware of this dispute until after the RFC opened. I for one assumed 1) that all participating editors would read the previous RFC's closing remarks the same way I did, and 2) that the vast majority of participating editors would, if they read the entire RFC, agree that the closing administrator's remarks were substantially correct. A few days into this RFC it became obvious that neither assumption was true.

It's likely to be academic at this point except as an object lesson on how to do chains-of-RFCs better in the future: Assuming Proposal 0/4 passes and none of the stand-alone proposals pass, or Proposal 0/4 fails and at least one stand-alone proposal passes, we will either halt PC2 discussions for good or move forward with PC2.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason Proposal 0/4 was added was because an anti-PC user added it. Like I said, this whole string of RfCs has been utterly controlled (questions-wise) by the pro-PC group. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ davidwr: Well, I could respond point by point to everything you've said, but what's the use? There's a divide between PC's supporters and its opponents that frankly seems too wide to bridge. I wonder sometimes how much of our differences are, at their core, even about PC itself and not other things. Fact: I could live with PC2 much more happily than I've been living with PC1 if it was used only in the rarest of circumstances, when disruption is severe and consensus is overwhelming that all other available measures have failed. But I don't kid myself that that's how it would be used if Proposal "0/4" (currently enjoying a majority !vote) somehow, bizarrely, is deemed not to pass, and I certainly don't think PC2 is necessary or that its potential benefits outweight its certain risks, so I feel much safer advocating its deprecation across the board.

As for object lessons, assumptions are dangerous things when it comes to issues as divisive as pending changes. An RfC such as this one always benefits from open discussion before it's even written and then again before it goes live. Doing so helps ensure that assumptions aren't built into the wording and that the presentation is as neutral as possible. Incidentally, having written one of the previous PC RfCs, I'm aware that the ideally worded RfC on this topic doesn't exist. Even though I consulted extensively with others beforehand, the RfC I wrote was flawed, and I took flak—some of it deserved—from both sides. But there are flaws and then there are fatal flaws, and this RfC has more than one of the latter. While a careful close will mitigate their effects, they still could taint the outcome, and that's the last thing we need after so many years of discord over this stuff. Rivertorch (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way 0/4 is is 35:30, discounting implicit opposes, meaning that it's a no-consensus and thus automatically failing. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would think so, yes. Rivertorch (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your interpretation of the consensus is incorrect there. In my reading, no proposal has secured consensus, the entire RFC is no-consensus which means we go back to status-quo ante: No PC2 is authorized, WMF-Office does what they want, and we have the fight again in 6~9 months. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you must be new here. Every single RfC with regards to this has been run as a straight-up vote as opposed to reasoned debate, largely because neither side is willing to budge - pro-PC wants all of de.wp's schemes without the need to learn German, anti-PC wants PC removed from en.wp due to it muddying a Foundation issue (anonymous editing). Neither side listens to the other, and pro-PC far and away outnumbers anti-PC. The numbers alone mean, even with raw numbers and the tendency for these RfCs to turn into straight votes, that 1 and 2 pass and 0/4 fails. Implicits have no bearing on this since without them 4 fails anyway (Pro-PC is VERY selective) and with them 1 and 2 still enjoy a majority opinion. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this discussion is changing opinions, at least in my case. My opinion on PC2 has generally shifted from "strong support, clearly superior to full protection in all cases" to "weak support, but still support: full protection may be better on specific cases even when in general PC2 would be better in most similar cases". At the very least, it's given me a much greater understanding why reasonable people oppose PC2. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that reasonable people (and some of the unreasonable anti-PC partisans) have all been scared away from the topic of PC by the refusal of both sides to listen to one another and the fact that pro-PC people are in the driver's seat. I will not claim innocence here, but there's a very good reason I've been bringing up concerns of community fatigue and an overreliance on regular RfCs. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the assumption of bad faith rather than assuming that I've read through "History of the great PC Wars Vols 1 ~ 5". Each time the question gets called it's "Be it read that PC is endorsed as a valid protection scheme, how should we use it". Each time the underlying premise that PC is authorized. Each time the premise is that PC is being ran as a test. Each time the premise is that community wishes will be respectd. Each time the outcome is wikilawyered and finessed so that the Pro-PC croud claims support for their viewpoint when none exists. Hasteur (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the "raw" numbers and this is what I found:

• Proposal 1: 62/33/0, best case 65+%. Implicit oppose: 14, worst case: 62/47/0, 56+%.
• Proposal 2: 61/21/0, best case 74+%. Implicit oppose: 15, worst case: 61/37/0, 62+%.
• Proposal 4: 35/30/0, best case 53+%. Implicit oppose: 61, worst case: 35/91/0, 27+%.

I did NOT try to filter out "early" !votes on Proposals 1 and 2, and I did not look at the discussions themselves, all things I would expect a closing administrator to do. I also did NOT go back and verify the numbers used in the "implicit opposes," they may be out of date by now. Any closing administrator would need to use "final" numbers and decide what weight, if any, to give to such "implicit" opposes, and be prepared to explain why he chose to give the weight he did or why he chose to give them zero weight.

Hasteur is correct about one thing: If this proposal closes as a complete "no consensus" (i.e. neither 4 nor any other stand-alone proposal reaches consensus, then we go back to the status quo and wait a few months before re-running this whole thing. In my opinion (I'm sure others will disagree), if that happens and Proposal 4 does NOT close as "consensus to not adopt" then it will be on the table in its own right in a few months. But if we have to re-run this and proposal but Proposal 4 closes this time around as "consensus to not adopt" then there will have to be a strong argument that "consensus may have changed" in order to put it back on the table the next go-around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That status quo should always be an option. And even if it were not, having one place to say "I oppose each of these" seems mighty reasonable. Hobit (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hobit. I also agree, somewhat, with davidwr; it's perfectly acceptable not to have a consensus. On the other hand, there's the fact that this is about the gazillionth RfC related to this topic in the past few years; it's time to call a good long moratorium on further RfCs - a year or longer would make sense. Risker (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have three closers, and I want to put in a !vote for a moratorium on trying to tell them what to conclude. I began this thread by questioning the way my opinions and the opinions of some other participants in the RfC had been characterized, and that issue has long ago been resolved. I'm impressed by how the conversation has swerved all over the place since then, but let's stop trying to call the election for Dewey over Truman. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least the Dewey blunder was harmless and made a great photo op. Some voting disputes are rather more dire in their consequences. Rivertorch (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Every word on the project page and this talk page is an implicit lobbying of all editors to see things from the point of view of the person who wrote it. This means that "I support X" or "I oppose X" or "I see N users support X and N users oppose X" implicitly That is the nature of discussions. It would not be a good idea to shut down such discussions unless the closers need them shut down so they can analyze the discussion. In any case, the closers should not shut down discussions on this page while the RFC is live, and I would prefer they not shut them down at all (see below). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. When I used the word "moratorium", I was playing on its use in the earlier comment, but I didn't intend it to mean that I wanted anyone to shut up. I simply meant that we had reached a point of diminishing returns in terms of predicting what the close might be. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker:If this closes as a complete "no consensus" I would be fine waiting a specific amount of time before re-running this, but a year is too long. I would prefer a 6-month minimum but I don't think the project would be hurt by waiting 9 months. My support for "wait a long time" only applies if this is a complete no-consensus, at least with respect to stand-alone proposals. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you'd be fine with the same or a shorter interval than the last one. That helps !voter fatigue how? Rivertorch (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting too long brings up other problems: You start approaching the point where it's best to ignore all previous discussions and start everything over from scratch, as if the previous discussions never happened at all. The 9-12 month range (and possibly even the 6-9 month range) will have some editors sighing "I'm tired of this" (!voter fatigue) and not participating, and it will have some editors saying "the last RFC was so long ago that it would be better to just ignore the previous discussions and start over with a new discussion at the village pump." The longer the delay, the fewer complaints of !voter fatigue, but the more complaints of "this is stale, let's start over from scratch, discarding any previous consensuses that may have formed" there will be. I'm thinking that 7-9 months may be a better "balance" than 6 months. 12 months is simply too long. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on everything except the timeline. I see 12 months as a minimum for avoiding voter fatigue. I would prefer 18 months. At 24 months, I would call the previous discussion stale. Ozob (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow at 7 pm Eastern US time will be thirty days from when the RFC ID was added. Does anyone mind if the RfC page gets a "no further edits" template at that time, so the closers can get to work? - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an excellent idea. Ozob (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. Let's get on with it. Ivanvector (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like only three users have volunteered to close (see above): jc37, EatsShootsAndLeaves, and Kevin Gorman. I have verified that jc37 and Kevin Gorman are administrators as of this edit; ES&L is not but their alter-ego DangerousPanda is. Does anyone object to these three users making up the panel of closers for this RfC? (I have no objections) Ivanvector (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with one of the closers or someone they designate (a "clerk") putting a "no further edits" template. I would prefer that the talk page not receive any such "stop talking" notices, but if the closers want to "close" existing discussions while allowing "new" (including "continued from above") discussions at the bottom that would be acceptable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think talk is ever closed. Ivanvector (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "page" to "RfC page", to be clear. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While some of the proposals have been posted less than 30 days, the responses seem to have slowed to a trickle (maybe even a slow drip). I don't personally object—bite the bullet and get it over with, I say—but I note the time factor for the record. Someone else may object, and they would have a point if they did. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objections to anything mentioned so far under this heading. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now closed. Thanks for participating, everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any reasonable time period by which we can expect the three closers to determine consensus and end the RFC? If any of the three can reply with such a time period, it would be great.
  talk) 21:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I cannot fathom why this would be closed to further discussion - 30 days is a minimum, not a maximum. However, there's no rush to close, and as noted below I'll be requesting a 3rd reviewer at
  WP:AN ES&L 11:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi all - I made an appropriate, policy-compliant action last night to lower the chance of significant emotional harm to Wikipedia editors and to the family members of a deceased Wikipedia editor. In the time since then, I've received no fewer than half a dozen emails demanding I resign. I believe wholeheartedly that I acted appropriately and within my mandate, but given the timing, I'm going to drop out closing of this RfC. Any way this RfC is closed is going to be contentious, and I don't desire to have another half dozen people calling for my head over it given that the current situation is going to keep me excessively busy as it is. Sorry all. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing what the situation is, and given the lack of volunteers to close, I suggest we continue with the two remaining closers. Ivanvector (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Details can be found on my talk page. Basically, I appropriately applied policy to end a BLP violation on Jimmy's talk page, but because of one of the people involved, I'm getting swarmed over it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, tragic though it is, I meant to say that the details aren't important here. If you feel your ability to close is impacted by that unrelated dispute, then I don't think there's any rule that prevents you from walking away. Ivanvector (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why we can't have serious procedure/policy changes. Someone volunteers to close something, and elsewhere makes a decision that offends an influential editor. Suddenly every judgement call by the volunteer ever made is called into question as being not the currently popular opinion.

Offtopic: And a harsh sanction should be applied to editors who make fun of/denigrade the recently deceased, but woe unto the admin who attempts to sanction a established influential editor

Hasteur (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bring that discussion here. KG feels the need to step down from closing, he has his reasons, let's move on. Ivanvector (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for absolute clarity I do want to specify that the reason I am stepping down from closing is because after suggesting that I might possibly sanction an editor who mocked the recently deceased I managed to receive something like 60 or 70 emails in a day, including at least seven or eight indignant demands that I resign for abuse of power and tons of threats to bring me to ANI etc. I know it's not relevant to this RFC, sorry for strongly phrasing why I'm stepping down as closer. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I voted "no" on PC2 in WP:PC2012/RfC 1, so I can't help here, but I'm comfortable volunteering to help close the future RfC mentioned in Proposal 15, if that becomes relevant. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In the interests of getting to an end point, I agree with Ivanvector's proposal to go with the two remaining closers. Those two editors are trustworthy, and there is nothing magical about the number three. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With three, you have a built-in tiebreaker. With two, it's a wiki-cage match to the death um, I mean, they will have to work out any differences peaceably . davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we could have an RfC about it... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I propose we open an RfC immediately concerning the proper number of closers, and also to determine whether everyone involved should be
        magical number. Ivanvector (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I'm already a fish, so you can't trout me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Turns out it isn't 3. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • As any child of the '70s raised on American television can tell you,
            Three Is a Magic Number. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I'm too young to remember back that far. (Huge lie!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My empathy for Kevin aside (and while not knowing his particular situation) I'm feeling a bit of dejavu from last time...lol You still around BW? - jc37 08:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging
  talk) 10:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As there's no rush in closing the RFC, we really haven't started much deliberation, and I typically prefer the 3-admin closing concept for a large RFC like this, I'll make a request for a new member at
  WP:AN in a few minutes ES&L 11:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Sounds fine to me. In the meantime, I'll at least create a subpage for our eventual discussion. - jc37 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  In the bright utopia in which my mind occasionally operates, I would expect the closers' decision to be unanimous rather than a majority vote, but if the experienced admins think that three heads are better than two, then I won't object. I thought it would go faster with two, because we wouldn't need to find a third, but you're absolutely right that there's no rush. Ivanvector (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I had reached Senior level in Sambo in my 20's, I cannot guarantee that I could defeat Jc in a bout...as such, I cannot guarantee a unanimous decision ;-) ES&L 18:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So can I take a dive now and avoid the suspense? : ) - jc37 18:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always knew that Wikipedia was actually written by pro wrestlers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, to my knowledge, publicly expressed any opinion on this issue, and frankly don't have a strong opinion. I'd be willing to do the job if there's no objection. Pakaran 22:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for stepping in at short notice. - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is a fairly lengthy and intricate RFC (in terms of the number of issues and !votes), and it might take me a bit to read, so if the other closers want to begin deliberations while I'm doing so, I don't see any problem with that. I'll try to look it over tonight, and in any case shouldn't take longer than Thursday morning. Pakaran 02:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already created a subpage for deliberation]], so please feel free to post your thoughts on the talk page there. - jc37 06:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, it went away for ~3 weeks and expected this would have been put to bed. Any news on where this stands? Hobit (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've seen. I don't see why such an obvious case of non-consensus is taking so long, myself.—Kww(talk) 21:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, thanks for letting me know. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for one of the co-closers to say something on the closure page. But in hindsight, maybe we're all looking to each other to make a start : ) - jc37 21:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be satisfied if the entire closing statement was, "The result was no consensus", but if you want to draft something more elaborate then I think you should get started. Ozob (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much, honestly. I've finished reading through the !votes at least, and will post something this weekend. Pakaran 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(slightly off-topic) Shouldn't the closer subpage be at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014/Closure? Which allows talk to be used in the case of questions to non-closers as well as discussions like this one? PaleAqua (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's with long delay? I think we should call it "No consensus" because... we realize that there is not enough effort and time to analyze discussion in Project page. --George Ho (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's a thorny RfC doesn't mean it needs to be closed as no consensus. Besides, if it is, a few months to years later, it will just have to be repeated. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There must be reasons for long delay. Otherwise, we must take this to

WP:AN. --George Ho (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Pinging DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves, jc37 and Pakaran. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, last time I was here I gave someone heck for closing it at exactly the 30 day mark, and believed it had been reopened as comments were still coming in. I see that wasn't done, and I'm shocked to find otherwise. I expected to be re-advised when the comments had stopped - was not expecting someone to have been awaiting a decision DP 09:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to reopen discussion after the long hiatus that's now happened. I suppose we could start by working up raw !vote totals, counting all implicit !votes, but not yet making judgments about strength of user preference or arguments raised? In any case, better late than never. Pakaran 14:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have expected that the administrative trimuverate would have been monitoring the page closely to determine if the discussion had truly ended and were starting to evaluate the consensus that was entered. The Administrators knew that this was a thorny RfC when they volunteered to close it. Administrative evaluation of the consensus was asked for prior to the closing, and if the admins are having so much trouble that they cannot make a evaluation of consensus, the current question must be closed as "No Consensus". I would say to those making it a foregone conclusion that we will have the question again in a few months that there should be a moritorium on calling the question for at least 6 months. Hasteur (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit disappointed in the lack of action by the closers as well, but I think we can (and should) chalk this up to honest mistake, rather than no consensus. There haven't been any more comments on the RfC since it was "officially" closed. Based on their comments here, the closers aren't having trouble evaluating consensus, they just haven't started. Let's just get on with it. Ivanvector (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to

talk!) 22:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Implicit opposes

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014/Closure § Implicit opposes

 – Moved closing-related discussion to talk page of closing subpage. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]