Wikipedia talk:PC2012/RfC 1

Question wording

"Should PC/2 be left out of the 2012 implementation of Pending Changes, to be activated only after a second and separate RfC?" This may carry the implication that PC/2 is inevitable. Also, calling it a "second" RfC is confusing because we're planning a second one this year (or a third, depending on how one counts them). It might be better to say something like "...to be activated only if a later RfC indicates consensus to do so". Rivertorch (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't working for me, I'll have a go. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's up. If we had 10 people at WT:PC2012 saying, "Yes, absolutely, PC/2 hasn't had a lot of support this year, and we probably need to start with one of the easier questions to build momentum and draw participation", then I'd have no problem with your approach, Adjwilley, you were simply telling it like it is ... but we don't have that, because most people lost interest and left. I think there's a reasonable chance that we'll get criticized for biasing the question if we say anything in the introduction about what we've heard about PC/2 ... although of course we can vote and comment however we like after it gets started. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Great copyediting, Isaac. I don't understand what "Please keep discussion to the "discussion" section" means ... maybe this? "Please put any extensive rationales or replies to votes in the Discussion section." - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not entirely happy with the new descriptions of PC/1 and PC/2. It seems more garbled and confusing than it was before. I'm headed out the door right now, but I'll see what I can do when I get back. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What you had was easier to say, but it wasn't right: no one's edits show up until the non-autoconfirmed edits are reviewed ... it's not just the IP edits that are suppressed, and this is a key point. (And let's avoid "autoconfirmed", since most editors don't know what that means.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. You're right that could be clearer, I took another stab at it. I don't want to say that pending edits can only be seen by logged-in users, because that's not strictly true; IP editors can see them just by pulling up the edit screen. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried modifying it further. Instead of repeating the problem with subsequent edits in each bullet point, I pulled it out and put it at the end. See what you think. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Dank's wording was easier to understand for someone who isn't already versed in the terminology surrounding pending changes protection. Knowing that the changes are marked as "pending", while instructive, isn't necessary to understand the effect of the protection, so in the interest of conciseness could be omitted.

Although the logician in me appreciates separating out the common aspects between pending changes levels 1 and 2, I have noted that many people find it easier to see a full description of a given option right next to it (with the descriptions formatted in a way to make them easy to compare). Thus I recommend not pulling out the commonality between the two levels. It requires readers to backtrack when they reach the common section (or mentally keep track of the information if the common section is placed before the differences), which adds an extra barrier to understanding. isaacl (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. My motivation for separating out the "subsequent edits" part was that it seemed to be muddying the difference between the two levels, which I consider to be the most important thing that users should understand for this particular RfC. The subsequent edits thing is a problem, but it's not the problem being addressed here, and axing PC/2 isn't going to fix it in any way. If I had my druthers I'd have it as a footnote (as it is in the collapsible table) or omit it altogether. I understand that probably won't fly, though, so if everybody wants to keep it, I'll look for a better way to put it back. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

How about the following text:

Pending Changes currently has two levels of protection, level 1 (PC/1) and level 2 (PC/2):

• When a page with PC/1 protection is edited by unregistered users or new users, that edit and all following ones are not included in the article displayed to the general public (that is, for readers who are not logged in), until the edits are approved by someone with the "reviewer" user right.
• When a page with PC/2 protection is edited by any non-reviewer, not just unregistered and new users, that edit and all following ones are not included in the article displayed to the general public, until the edits are approved by a reviewer.

isaacl (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I like that. Not sure if Dank will. He's the one who wanted to emphasize the subsequent edits part, I think, but I like it a lot. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reinserted "anyone's ... edits". I removed the word "policy" ... that's another one of the key points, we're creating so-called "policy" that hasn't been discussed on any policy page or integrated with current policy. I agree, Adjwilley, I would love to tell people what the proposal is ... but proposals have to be signed, and who's going to sign this? We don't have any authority here, and supporting a negative always confused some voters, so I think yesterday's wording was clearer ... support PC/2, oppose PC/2. - Dank (push to talk) 11:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I assumed the intent of having a "Discussion" section was so that comments in the "Support" and "Oppose" section would be brief, and discussions would be held in the "Discussion" section. Perhaps you can elaborate? isaacl (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Currently it says "Any replies to voters or longer rationales should go in the Discussion section" ... feel free to tweak that. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the intent that commenters simply put a signature in the "Support" or "Oppose" sections, and place any comments in the "Discussion" section? isaacl (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I meant by "longer" was "long-winded", but that wouldn't be a nice way to put it :) A short paragraph of rationale is not uncommon in RfCs, and I don't think it does any harm, it's the back-and-forth in response to a vote that starts to fill up pages, that's what I wanted to avoid. But I don't really have a preference, what would you like for instructions? - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I know it's common for commenters to have the opportunity to include a brief paragraph, but just wanted to double check your intent. At the moment I don't see any particular need to break with this tradition (I imagine there aren't so many arguments to raise that the support/oppose sections will become unwieldy). isaacl (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. Just...wow. This completely fails to capture the reason that PC2 is at issue. And people wonder why I washed my hands of this entire thing. And for pity's sake, why are we repeating the same problem from the previous RFC? Discussion at the TOP please, not buried under the votes. Risker (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  I wonder, yeah. I think your insight might be invaluable at the RfC. If something isn't being said, would you please just say it instead of alluding to it? PC is an extraordinarily convoluted boondoggle idea, and I, for one, can't keep track of all its implications. Rivertorch (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll explain further. The basic information that is being provided to the voters in this RFC is extremely deficient. It does not mention at all what points have been brought up in the past in favour and in opposition to the use of PC2 — in fact, the degree of omission of this basic information is such that any result of the RFC is tainted. The discussion, where some of these points are being raised, is for the second time in a row relegated to the bottom of a long page, where few will venture to go. We are going out of our way to gather people's opinions before actually providing information. Remember that the default is status quo, which means that PC2 will be available unless a consensus of the participating editorship opposes its use. Yet nobody has justified in any way why it should be available at all, and there wasn't even consensus support for the development of it, let alone use of it.

The entire pending change saga — which I got dragged into before the initial trial — has been an absolutely picture perfect example of how NOT to make changes in the project. The software is horrendous, and was written to try to placate warring factions, most of whom had no understanding of the practical effects of what they were asking for. It was poorly tested before being implemented: there was not a single "non-autoconfirmed" account or "reviewer" account on the test wiki to see what things looked like from that perspective, and most of the admin interfaces hadn't been tested. There were no significant resources set aside for data collection and analysis throughout the trial, and no analysis was carried on afterward. We've had repeated RFCs to decide whether or not to actually use this stuff, none of which has provided any factual information on which to base decisions; there is good reason for many people to say that the question kept being asked until the "right" answer was extracted from the entrails. The level of ambivalence about pending changes, even amongst the "metapedian" community that participates in these discussions, has been phenomenal. I note the absence of almost every participant of the last RFC who advocated that using pending changes was a good idea, or even those who thought that we needed to have the discussion again, for the fourth time. It is precisely the kind of situation that makes me wonder why I haven't wiped every Wikipedia-space page off my watchlist, quit anything that involves dealing with meta-issues, and just gone back to fixing typos and doing a bit of copy editing as an IP. Except, of course, if I do it as an IP, my edits won't be publicly visible... Risker (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with everything you say (and, regarding the last bit, said something uncannily similar only yesterday). In defense of those who set up this RfC (I was on the periphery, arguing against it for other reasons), we're working with a ridiculously short time frame here. PC/2 is only one question of several that absolutely need to be answered by before December, and if we become mired in discussion over it, what happens to the other ones? The way I see it, the whole process, since PC was first a blip on the edge of the radar, has been terribly flawed, and we're left trying to make the best of a bad situation. Since many contributors to the RfC presumably won't be reading this talk page, it might be helpful if you could condense some of what you said above and add it to the project page itself. Rivertorch (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Motivation for RFC

As currently written, the RFC doesn't give any indication why the question is being asked about the use of pending changes level 2. For those who did not follow the trial closely or have not tried to think through the consequences of levels 1 and 2 for pending changes, I think a summary of the consequences of level 2 is desirable. isaacl (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of anything "neutral" to say; suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. I do regret that we haven't had more participation; if we had enough people to generate something we could call a "consensus" for instructions, we could maybe get a calmer reaction. That's half the battle here, for me ... I'm hoping to use a not very interesting RfC to get enough people involved so we can actually come up with some "consensual" guidance for the big RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In the version before your edit, from the second paragraph, I thought the sentence starting with "For instance..." and the one after that summarized the key concerns some had regarding pending changes, level 2. This would provide the motivation for why the option of dispensing with level 2 protection is being discussed. Regarding neutrality, well, I copy-edited those sentences, so naturally I have a biased view on their lack of bias :-P. In any case, I'd have to take another look at how to best integrate this information into the current version. isaacl (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

How about the following paragraph, to follow the description of pending changes, levels 1 and 2:

Some concerns have been raised about the restrictiveness of PC/2 protection:

• Reviewers could block all edits from non-reviewers.
• Editors without the reviewer user right may be discouraged from editing articles with PC/2 protection, as their edits will not be generally visible without the intervention of a reviewer.

This RFC is seeking a consensus on using PC/2 protection; do its benefits outweigh its disadvantages?

isaacl (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of having some of the potential benefits and drawbacks, and I had tried to put that in the first draft. (It seems to have gotten removed somewhere along the way.) My plan now is to be one of the earlier voters and concisely list some of the benefits. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

PC/2 is a fairly dramatic reversal of some long-established principles; people might be in favor or against, but I think it wouldn't help to represent PC/2 in terms of some of the smaller or less likely consequences ... people might get the idea that we're saying that it's not that big a deal. If people seem confused, I have no problem responding in the Discussion section, since I'm not a closer any more. - Dank (push to talk) 02:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Some people think the same of pending changes, level 1; I think it's reasonable to describe the key concerns that have led to this request for comments on the use of level 2. Otherwise, it feels like the question of pending changes is just being rehashed once again. In addition, specifically mentioning the concerns being addressed illustrates that this discussion process is responsive to the issues raised by everyone and is open to adjusting policy accordingly. I don't believe my proposed wording indicates the problems are not a big deal (if anything, it tends to emphasize them). isaacl (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

IMO we're going to get into trouble if we represent any one question or one position as being the thing we're voting on here. I can go into more detail, but I'd prefer not to. Spartan is better. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding trying to generate a consensus, I think asking people to generate their own draft policies was a good start. Having tried to steer some discussions in the past, I appreciate the difficulties; in the end, what the participants are willing to deal with determines what agreement can be reached. I think narrowing down the scope of the goals for this deployment of pending changes should help focus discussion. isaacl (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the copyediting guys, it looks good. Okay, I'm off to bed ... if there's no RfC tag at the top of the page when I get up, I'll add one unless someone wants us to hold off ... in which case, we'll want to change the notice in the Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And we're off

Yay. I didn't want to sign the RfC statement, it's a joint effort of course, but RfC bot requires a signature from someone to report the RfC correctly on this page. Now added to WP:CENT. I'll go ask over at WT:FAC (with a link from WT:GAN) for advice on reaching non-Metapedians. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The RFC bot only requires a date stamp, so I've pulled your name out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Persistent bad-faith edits

This is one of the topics under discussion, but a full treatment involves a lot more than PC/2, I think. So, let's say that people make what I think of as bad-faith edits to a biography page persistently, say Mr. X, maybe every 4 days or maybe every 4 months. This is causing problems, because the larger community hasn't been particularly supportive in this situation:

• If the offending edits can't be easily identified by key words or word strings, we don't generally have filters that are smart enough to catch the edits. My understanding is that natural language processing software has evolved tremendously in the last decade, just not on Wikipedia :)
• The community is still hesitant to go after a range of known problems (such as persistent BLP violations) with the same speed and certainty that they attack vandalism; they generally don't let bots do this work, either.
• Hard-working admins and others who are very good at identifying persistent article problems don't get the support they need; they're often left to do all the work themselves.

However, I'm not comfortable prohibiting discouraging the whole world (outside of a chosen few) from editing an article just because we've had a hard time winning these battles within the community; that will really hurt our reputation. I'm also not comfortable inventing or using a tool that enforces my views on where attention needs to be paid and what needs to happen whether people like it or not, if I haven't been successful in persuading them. I think the answer is to do a better job of persuading them to give me the support I need to get the job done. TLDR: Let's insist on tools that catch persistent bad-faith edits immediately, let's get the community to take bad-faith editing as seriously and revert it as quickly as they do vandalism, and let's insist on respect and support for the people doing the work. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Two comments:

• It's not "prohibiting the whole world (outside of a chosen few) from editing an article". It's "prohibiting the whole world (outside of a chosen few) from editing an article and having those edits instantaneously displayed to unsuspecting readers."
  • Sorry, I meant "discouraging", fixed.
• Who exactly am I supposed to persuade of the inadvisability of adding garbage to articles? The persistent sock? NB that in my experience, the persistent socks are good-faith but stupid editors, not vandals or trolls. They are people who deeply believe that a diet of organic beet top juice will cure cancer, or that a diet of strawberries and raw peanuts cures AIDS, or that the world will be filled with magic and light as soon as Wikipedia's articles use euphemisms to describe certain intelligence-related disabilities. They're trying their very best to be helpful to the whole world. The problem is that their very best is not good enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And when the larger community of Wikipedians agrees with you that these edits introduce flaws just as serious as vandalism, they'll treat these edits like vandalism, rather than pushing the work off onto a relative few. That's the community we have to convince. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

    So between now and then, you want those serious flaws to be displayed to all readers? How does this help? Is this the "don't fill any potholes, because otherwise the voters won't agree to pay the taxes we want" theory? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

    Heh, no that's not the theory. - Dank (push to talk) 23:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

    So what is the theory? How does displaying bad edits to readers convince the community to treat good-faith, but erroneous, edits like vandalism? What's the mechanism?
    And is that really what you want? Do you want to tell someone who is dying of cancer and gullible enough to believe the Gerson diet will cure him, that his efforts to tell the truth as he sees it are just as bad as the kid who puts "poop" into the middle of pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

    Are we talking about a page where we know what "bad" text is likely to be inserted, or where we just have a sense that bad material might be added at any time? - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

    In one instance, we're talking about a page where the bad ideas are known, but the exact wording varies, i.e., something easy for a human to spot after you've seen a couple, and impossible for a simple text filter to spot. In another instance, there are keywords that have legitimate use (and thus already appear in the article), but the editor wants his preferred keywords to dominate in violation of NPOV. As an additional complication, in the last instance, innocent newbies (from one country) occasionally make small edits that use these keywords, without intentionally trying to create a WEIGHT problem. Any filter that finds "him" is likely to also trip on "them". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

    I'm going to ask a WMF person how we might go about using, or getting someone else to use, software that spots given words, synonyms, and concepts related to those words. That would be a start, at least. I'll let you know what I find out. - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the RfC

Threading of individual rationales is discouraged on the RfC page, and the RfC discussion section is generally for discussing the issue itself, so I figured this was the best place to post. I would like to add a few observations.

Firstly, a few in the support column seem to have completely misunderstood what we are talking about (PC2). I don't wish to embarrass specific users: they presumably gave this RfC 30 seconds because they're fed up of talking about the issue. But for instance:

• "It's also great for filtering out vandalism while allowing other IPs to edit". IP vandalism should be dealt with by PC1, which we are not discussing. I'm sure someone will argue that technically this could also apply to PC2, but do we ever fully protect articles due to vandalism?
• "Support its use in lieu of semi-protection in vandalism cases, esp. on biographies of living persons." Again, applicable to PC1.

Secondly, a lot of people's support of PC2 is conditional on a tighter policy than the draft proposal, none of whom are listed above. These include:

• Joe Decker
• David1217
• Monty845
• Callanecc
• Fluffernutter
• WhatamIdoing
• Gigs (unless I have misunderstood "as long as it is treated with the same seriousness as full protection is treated today")

While others not in this list, such as Rd232, explicitly acknowledge that a restrictive policy in which PC2 is allowed would be preferable to a complete disabling of PC2.

Thirdly, many of those opposed express the view that there may be a use for PC2 under a tight policy, but that a tight policy should come be a prerequisite to PC2 being turned on. Editors in this category include:

• Hut 8.5 ("I could see it having a role if it is used very rarely... but I'm not persuaded that it will be used like that.")
• Me (more implicitly than anyone else here, but I have the benefit of knowing what I am thinking)
• Hobit ("I can certainly see how this could be useful in rare situations. I'm just worried it will be applied way too often")
• S Marshall ("I definitely don't want to see our admin corps making up the rules as they go along with this. First the guidelines, discussed and agreed, then switch on the tool.")
• DGG (only by scrapping it can we be confident that a suitably tight policy will be drafted, and only if there is a demonstrable need for PC2 would the community turn it on with such a restrictive policy)
• Rivertorch (weakly opposed due to lack of clear direction on what PC2 would be used for: doesn't want a free-for-all)

At risk of misrepresentation, it should be stressed that at least one of the editors above would prefer that we don't turn PC on at all.

I have gone to the effort to highlight these things because "no consensus" does not strike me as being a plausible option in this RfC. "No consensus" would reinforce the status quo, PC2 going ahead with the draft policy. A maximum of a third of those who appear to have understood this discussion seem comfortable with the status quo in relation to PC2. The remainder express a preference for limiting PC2's use relative to the draft proposal (either explicitly as explained above, or by extension of wanting PC2 turned off altogether). The ratio may be even more decisively against the status quo, as I have given the benefit of the doubt to rationales which seem to be supporting PC generally, but are too ambiguous for me to be sure. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I would be very surprised if the strength of arguments of the minority carried the day in this particular instance. —WFC— 06:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a fair assessment, and you're certainly right about some supporters misunderstanding what they're supporting; I noticed that too. So, if consensus is clearly against permitting PC2 under the draft policy, and consensus on a replacement policy cannot be reached before the deadline, what then? Will PC2 be dead and buried or merely in some unholy state of suspended animation from which it might be laboriously revived after another round of tedious RfCs? Rivertorch (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My sense is that your main goal here, WFC, is that we avoid "no consensus, therefore PC/2 wins". My response to this, and to similar things that Risker and WAID said, is at WP:PC2012/RfC_1#Outcome of this phase. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Analysis along the lines of "Now wait a minute, what were they really saying?" is great ... but it's too soon, because the analysis doesn't take into account that people generally try to get their main point into just a few sentences in the support/oppose section of an RfC ... so we have no idea what the full thoughts of the voters were. It will take some time in committee to find out. The same kind of analysis could just as easily be used to negate some of what the opposition said. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to your last sentence, you may notice that I have done precisely that. It's true that I have highlighted a couple of support comments where the editors seem to have misunderstood the discussion, but that was inevitable. Someone opposed to PC altogether would naturally oppose PC2. On the other hand, someone whose rationale expresses support for the functionality of PC1 can't be automatically presumed to support PC2.

As for the RfC outcome, our aim is the same, but my belief is that the ideal solution is to demonstrate consensus for a restricted PC2, and then start the committee. The approach you are taking effectively concedes that this will be closed as "no consensus", with the determination that the committee will instead find a consensus. Your way is good fail-safe, but explicit endorsement of consensus for a tighter policy on PC2 would make things a lot easier. —WFC— 08:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree - My impression of this RfC is that there is a consensus for PC2 under a tighter policy and I agree that stating that will make the committee easier. However, ultimately it is down to the closing admin to state what the consensus of this RfC is. Yaris678 (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my support is not conditional on any change to the written policy. I have ideas about how to make the written policy better, but I can live with what we've got. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Time to close

Well, the RfC has been running for a week plus a couple of hours. I'm not exactly sure what the correct procedure is to close it, but it looks like it's about time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I pinged The Blade on his talk page yesterday morning ... it seems straightforward enough, but let's give him a little time to do it if he wants to. We can't close, of course, but anyone can box it up with the {{discussion top}} template (and, before The Blade weighs in, anyone can revert). - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We should all remember to thank him when it's over. Closing a contentious discussion is never any fun, especially when he can realistically expect anyone who doesn't know WP:How to lose to fuss about his best efforts afterwards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the two who were in opposition on the 11-2 vote if they have any objection to boxing this RfC up while we wait for The Blade's closing statement. The vote suggests to me a consensus to move to committee work now. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No objection. Hut 8.5 13:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and Signpost

Thanks for your work, Blade, I think that's a good result, and I could use the time off :) I think space is tight this week at "News and Notes" in the Signpost, but I believe we can have a paragraph ... anyone have a preference how the story should read? - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, any objection to hitting the main findings and then quoting the last paragraph of the closing statement? - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Jan wants up to 4 paragraphs and some idea of where Pending Changes is headed ... but without more participation, I'm not willing to write that story, so I'll wait another week for feedback, and I'll mention this to the other two closers from June, DeltaQuad and Thehelpfulone. For now, I'll just hit the main findings of the RfC and quote its last paragraph. Also see the next section. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Story is now up at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-09-17/News and notes, which will appear in the next edition. Pretty straightforward, with a lot of quotes. Perhaps analysis or a bit of a roadmap could follow in a future Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Dank, could you comment out the last paragraph here, or otherwise make a note of it at places like RFC 2? --Mysterytrey 19:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to editing that page, after any RfC, but I'd rather wait a week and watch the reaction to the Signpost story, and reaction on this page ... with Pending Changes, there's always the chance someone will mount a challenge to any close ... although I have to say, it seems unlikely this time. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we've gone a week with no objections to your suggestion or to anything concerning this RfC, so I've made the suggestion over at the talk page of RfC 2. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Default?

I'm confused. The close reads ". . . the result is no consensus, which would default to not using PC level 2 for the time being". While I believe that's a perfectly sound judgment, I'm confused as to how that can be the default. The previous RfC's close stated:

If the community has not, at that time [1 November, 2012]], 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.

And the draft policy does allow for the use of PC2. I may be thoroughly mixed up, but it looks as though this close establishes a new default that overrides the earlier one. (I'm not complaining.) Rivertorch (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of true consensus building, I hope everyone will evaluate the closing in terms of "Is this a consensus I can live with?", rather than if it seems to align perfectly with each individual's particular interpretation of how the discussion ought to be closed. A deferral, after all, doesn't close any doors; it simply provides a bit more time to discuss this particular aspect. isaacl (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would hope the same. Rivertorch (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Briefly, I decided on that because that's the status quo as of now, which is the normal progression after a no consensus discussion. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 12:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

(Jade is Blade btw.) Well, Blade and Fluffernutter are the two admins who have stayed involved since closing the previous RfC, and I'm sure Fluffy will tell us if she has a problem with this closing statement. I've invited her to participate in drafting the Signpost story, in the previous section. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I second Isaac's comment: Can we live with this? There's no change to the written policy, but will it really hurt us not to use PC2 until we've got some experience with the basic form?

I don't think that this outcome means "scream at any admin who uses it" or "wheel wars are authorized here" or anything dramatic like that, especially since not every admin will know or remember the outcome of this discussion, and even people who remember it sometimes click the wrong button. This is more like a firm recommendation to get our toes wet before we jump in. I don't think that anyone ever thought PC2 would be appropriate on even 1/1,000 articles—probably not even 1/10,000—so why not deal with the main part, and get back to this minor part later, with the benefit of that experience?

It is a little odd to have our written policy and our practice diverge so significantly, but perhaps that could be solved with a little note that we're deferring implementation of PC2 until spring, so that we can get more experience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the word "policy" is used loosely, but it usually means something written on one of our policy pages, which none of the PC stuff is. Yes, there's a change to what's written: Blade's last paragraph is now what's written. If Fluffy feels that this contradicts what she wrote before, she'll tell us ... but assuming she's on board, I think what Blade has done here is wise: there was no trial, little discussion, and almost no mentions by voters of PC/2 before and during the last RfC, so the closing coords had to make the best guess they could based on what they had ... it's hard to fault any conclusions they drew when they had so little data. This RfC focused on PC/2, so Blade had much more to work with, and his opinion is in his last closing paragraph. What I'd like to see over the next six to nine months is shifting the focus to the problem and away from one proposed solution: what kinds of tools and assistance can we offer to the people who work on protected pages, with the goals of increasing efficiency and speed and reducing the number of full-protected pages? If we make progress with the problems, which is where the focus ought to be, then the proposed solutions can change. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I've been namedropped, I'll give my 2 cents: I think consensus could have been read validly in either of two ways here - either "no consensus for how we want this to work, so no consensus for PC2" (which is what Blade went with), or "A plurality of commenters seem to agree that in Specific Circumstance X, PC2 could be helpful and would be less likely to be misused, so consensus for PC2 in that circumstance." Obviously since my !vote was in the second bucket, it would not be surprising that I think that might have been the stronger close. However, Blade's close is also a valid read of the comments on this RfC, and I can certainly live with it going forward. It's undeniable that even among those who think PC2 has a use, there were severe reservations to moving forward with it. And as Dank points out, the initial RfC which I helped close had very little input specific to PC2, so I don't see this close as conflicting with that close in any way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks kindly Fluffy, I agree. - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Closing statement says, "By then, we will have a better idea of how PC works". Shouldn't that read, "By then, we will have a better idea of whether PC works"?—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  I think that "how PC works" is appropriate even from the perspective of its opponents: "How does PC work?" "Badly." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)