Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013

If this closes as no consensus

If this closes as no consensus of when to use it but there is a consensus that "there might be cases where this is appropriate" I recommend quickly opening a new RFC with a narrowly-tailored set of criteria that will almost certainly have wide support.

The RFC has only been open half a day but looking at the "opposes" and the "support but..." statements, it looks like the lack of a well-defined criteria is a serious concern for many !voting and commenting during the first half-day. There is some opposition on general principles (!bureaucracy, etc.), but that opposition (so far) won't, by itself, block consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

16:38 May 18 clarification to 1st paragraph

I clarified the first paragraph. Here it is with my additions in bold: {

The pending changes page protection level currently has two sub-levels of protection: PC/1 and PC/2. PC/1 is the level that is ubiquitously used when the decision to use PC on an article is made by an administrator. It allows all edits by confirmed/autoconfirmed users to instantly appear on a page if all previous edits have been accepted, effectively becoming the "latest accepted revision" that is displayed to everyone (unless a condition applies which is overly technical for the purpose of this RfC). However, if either an IP address or new user wishes to edit an article with this protection level, then their edits and any future edits are submitted and withheld from the general public until they become reviewed by a user with the "reviewer" permission. Logged-in users will always see the most recent edit.

I was bold, you may revert (or not) and discuss (or not) as is tradition (see WP:Bold, revert, discuss). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that strikes my "unless a condition" line as obsolete. So I removed it. You brought in the qualifying condition more succinctly than I could have. Dea db eef 20:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what that "technical" reason was. You had me thinking "unless there is an obscure lag in database synchronization" or something purely technical like that. Glad to see it really was just this simple. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for closers

I'll leave pointers at WP:BN, WT:RFA, and WP:AN. I asked for closers a few weeks ago on the same pages, with no response. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As unlikely as it is that I will be accepted as a closer, I wouldn't mind being a, not the, closer.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty ambivalent at this end, and I like closing complex debates; foundation relationship might be a problem, mind, but I'm happy to offer my services. Ironholds (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could use something complex to look at too. ;)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I volunteered to close a while ago, it looks like that silly thing will take precedent over my life for the next few weeks (exams, vacation, etc.)--sorry to bow out on y'all. Theopolisme (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been completely out of the loop since closing the latest round of RfCs on this topic and am currently in isolation mode on Wikipedia, so I'm in no position to be trying to close this. But I feel compelled to say a brief piece to encourage people. Honestly, though you may hear the horror stories from people who've closed similar RfCs, after closing 4 of these I'll just say that if you know what you're doing it's really not all that bad. Ultimately someone has to do it, and no one is going to kill you. To whoever signs up to close, read Zhuangzi before you start; it'll help you keep an open mind. Now back to being the gnarled tree and the turtle he described... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Blade. You've got some "institutional memory" that the closers may find useful; can we run proposals by you for reactions? - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, fine with me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone would agree that we need closers who have time to invest and who aren't going to become "the issue" themselves, and anyone else who qualifies on both counts is welcome to volunteer (within the next 34 hours, please, before the voting closes). Cyber, the two guys you list as mentors are well-known to the community, and I've made a proposal at User_talk:C678#Closing the RfC to involve them, if you're all willing. Oliver/Ironholds, good to see you here, and thanks for offering. If anyone has a problem with me, Ironholds, Cyber, or anyone else who offers to close, please say so; this is going to be a major investment of time, and we need to get to work. Personally, my main goal will be to make sure that the process respects the rights of Wikipedians to vote and to be heard. I think we'll probably need to put a (hopefully neutral) questionnaire together for further input, because the question wasn't particularly clear in this RfC, and that makes it hard to interpret the votes and rationales. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you still need volunteers to help close, I will. But if others would like to, I'll happily step back and allow them the joy of closing : )

As for involvement, I know my tendency is to comment all across Wikipedia about a myriad of topics, but I honestly don't recall ever commenting on this topic. But that said, I also know that discussions about the pending changes process have been ongoing literally for years. So it may be possible I dropped a thought somewhere. But I'm sincerely doubting it.

Anyway, let me know. I'm open to whatever. - jc37 17:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jc. I'm assuming that anyone who offers is in if no one objects; not many have been volunteering to close these RfCs. There was one (very reasonable) objection to my participation, so I'm sitting out the discussions until the rest of you make the initial go/no-go decision. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberpower, there were some strong reactions the last time you offered to close a big RfC. I was hoping one of your mentors would get on board here, and that that would be good enough for everyone ... any progress on that? (Thanks for the nifty closing template, btw!) - Dank (push to talk) 11:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly haven't made an effort on it yet. RL is a bit in my way at the moment, I will be free to close, but I'm not free at this very moment. Those strong reactions were from me not being an admin. Because Worm is busy, I was simply planning on closing as I do, run it by Worm for thoughts, and discuss with Ironholds on my stance of what the outcome should be. We are all working together, so if I am being faulty, it will likely be brought up in our discussion.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were the only non-admin offering to close the last time, I suppose it's possible that the same complaints would have been directed at any non-admin, although I didn't think so at the time. Does anyone want to weigh in one way or the other on Cyberpower's (or anyone's) request to close? - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody who voted at WP:PC2012/RfC_1 should participate in this RfC's close. That includes Cyberpower, Theopolisme, and Dank. Despite the honest intentions, it would look really bad. (Blade and jc37 are okay, since they have never, as far as I can tell, expressed an opinion on PC2 one way or the other.) Ozob (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC was so far back. I voted because I wanted to see all the PCs in action. I have lost that ambition over time as I have gained more maturity. I can tell you that I have no opinion on this matter whatsoever, hence me not participating here. If people object to me being a closer, I will step out as well, but it would be nice to be able to participate in closing a big RfC such as this one.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since Blade is the one who wrote the 2012 RfC's close, she (and everyone else who did) shouldn't be involved since the general opinion is that the close there was a super!vote. Note CMBJ's 05:52 10 June comment in the section above. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the fact that I still could not possibly care less about the implementation of any level of PC, I've also completely cut myself off from the analysis of its use and any discussions between then and now. My on-wiki time for the last 6 months has been hyperfocused in one location, and until that's finished (which is still a ways off) I have no intention of doing anything else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC was September 2012, which is only nine months ago; that's pretty recent. Like I said before, I think you (and Dank also) have honest intentions. But the best thing for WP is for this process to be unimpeachably clean—and that means that anyone with a past publicly expressed preference should stay out of the closing. Ozob (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might be an elegant way to resolve this conflict. How about Ironholds? And note that Blade hasn't volunteered (clearly, we need to put more pressure on him :). Closers should never be "the issue", so if even a few are uncomfortable, I'm out. In my defense, I was serious about staying out of the discussions until the main decision was made. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be a closer. Keepscases (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate Kyra Sedgwick. David in DC (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, from what I gather, User:Ironholds, User:Cyberpower678, and User:Jc37 are our closers, and User:Dank has recused. Dank, let me know if I'm mistaken.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Time is running short, and we have two people saying that I shouldn't because I participated in WP:PC2012/RfC_1 (which is quite reasonable) and no one saying that I should, so sure, I won't close and won't offer opinions on who should. I'm not going anywhere, though ... I'll help when there's an opportunity to help. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok. Then it's settled. I'll email the other two then.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  May I register again my strong opposition to your participating as a closer, given your previously stated support for PC2? Ozob (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If closers have partaken in previous RfCs on PC/2, regardless of their support or opposition, or how long has passed since the last RfC, they should not be involved in closing this RfC. Closers should be entirely non-partisan, no bias whatsoever. Seeing as Dank has stepped-back from the role, it probably would be better for Cyberpower to not be a closer given his support in the last RfC, as it only leads to controversy and bureaucrats like Ozob above looking to find excuses why a closure not in his favour might not have been impartially closed, and demand a second round of debate. Very tedious. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: I think you mean bureaucrat in the pejorative sense, as opposed to the user right sense. (For what it's worth, I disagree but am not offended.) Ozob (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the previous FLR and PC debates were closed competently and fairly, some actions taken following them may not have reflected the consensus. In view of the history, neutral closers would be particularly appreciated for this RfC. Certes (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon the concerns above, is there a diff for where cyberpower expressed their opinion previously?

Also, afaict, Blade is only not a closer due to self choice. Closing previous RfCs doesn't in and of itself make one biased/disqualified.

And now that I've read over much of this, I think I should mention for transparency, I have expressed comments in the past about all admin-granted user-rights (as a group) that I feel that there tends to not be much oversight of their usage. I was more speaking about rollback at the time, but the comment applies to them all, in my experience, and so, that would include reviewer.

But that said, I don't think that that has much of anything to do with this rfc.

I think it will be difficult to find closers (admins in particular) who have not said things associated with protection or user-rights as that tends to be a fair part of what admins may deal with. At some point we're playing six degrees of separation : ) - jc37 06:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it would be this !vote which raises concern over any bias on his behalf. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the diff that concerns me. I'm not bothered by a closer who has opinions about protection or userrights; my concern with Cyberpower678 is that he has voted to support for PC2 in the past, and that makes him appear non-neutral. Ozob (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand everyone's concerns, but please allow me the chance to convey my POV. When I voted in that RfC, I was merely curious on how it worked and wanted to see it in action. Now that I have, I no longer care about whether PC2 or PC in general is switched on or switched off. Also over the past 9 months, I have changed a lot. I have directed my focus to bot work and occasional closes of RfCs. I will feel just the same whether PC is switched on or not.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the past we've had closers (including me) who have even participated in the said discussion. However those situations tended to be because everyone willing to close had participated in the discussion, or the discussion was open a long time, and no one stepped forward to close. And even in those cases, the closer typically noted this, and offered, in closing, to be reverted if some other admin/closer would step forward to close.

And I think that a person can have an opinion and still be neutral in closing.

And I've never been a fan of applying the pseudo-standard known as "Caesar's wife".

That said, I think something we prize in a closer is discernment. And that includes when deciding whether or not to be a closer.

Also, no discussion is "equal", and some are more volatile than others. And we should, I think, take into account the "concern" over the last close when deciding this. (Plus the typical Wikipedia mantra: "There's always another closer".)

I'm not suggesting to cyberpower that they should step aside, nor am I suggesting they should stay on as closer. I'm merely suggesting that these (and other considerations) should be weighed in the decision on whether to be a closer.

I look forward to their thoughts on this. - jc37 15:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ cyberpower: It really doesn't matter why you participated in that earlier RfC or what has happened since then. This close has a high risk of being controversial in the first place, and if one of the closers has any appearance of involvement, risk becomes inevitability. I don't think anyone here has questioned your good intentions, and I'm sure you want to contribute to a fair close, but this is a close in which everything and everyone need to be beyond reproach in reality and in appearance. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_more_eyes. I think in most situations on Wikipedia, more eyes neutrally looking over a situation is a good thing. I hope this helps. In the meantime, though I've started collating, and working on a draft concerning closing, I'm holding off for now, preferring to see this is resolved before we move forward with working on closing. - jc37 05:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, my feelings here (as another closer) are that it is problematic. I'm not concerned that cyberpower is likely to make a biased decision - he says he's neutral, I trust him on that. My concern is basically that mentioned by Rivertorch above; that any closure is going to be controversial, and that iff this closes in the direction of "we should enable PC/2" cyberpower is opening himself up to a large amount of flak. Whether that flak is actually justified is irrelevant: it's a matter not only of perception but also of sanity. I have no wish to see a good-faith contributor driven away because of a situation that could be avoided, or this to turn into any more of a drama-magnet than the subject matter will inevitably make it. @C678:, I'd like you to reflect on this and give your thoughts. Ironholds (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh. This slipped my watchlist. I feel like a capable closer on this is because my autism. I tend to see things objectively and logically. If it really is troublesome that I am a closer, then I will submit to that, but I see the outcome likely heading to no consensus, personally. The close will be discussed among the other closers and mutual result and reason will be established from it. I understand the concerns raised, I just don't understand why they should be concerns.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That they are concerns, and serious ones, should be enough. Appearances are important. I don't suppose that too many Wikipedians—even those who have never commented on pending changes in any venue—have no preconceived notions whatsoever and are truly impartial, and it may well be that you could be as impartial as anyone in this context. But it won't look that way. That's not so much your fault as an inescapable fact of human nature. Rivertorch (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still reading

Hi.

I'm still in the process of reading. (This rfc, the last rfc, some associated policies, and a few other things.)

Is there some arbitrary "deadline" that we have to meet?

I'd prefer to make sure the close is a decent one (ie representative of the community's discernment, and following existing policies/processes as appropriate and applicable), than to just rush it through just for the sake of closing quickly : )

I also presume that none of the closers have substantively participated. As for me, as I said, I'm still playing catch up, to read this and the previous discussions.

So I appreciate your patience : ) - jc37 04:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say 4 weeks would be an appropriate deadline to set. That should be enough time to read me discuss viewpoints expressed by editors here. :-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it doesn't take that long, but nod, that sounds fine. These things tend to have "soft" deadlines anyway...

The next step, I think, would probably be to set up a subpage for the closers to discuss as needed and to work on one or more rough drafts for the close. I prefer transparency. That said, if the other closers really prefer to discuss this in email, I won't strongly oppose it, though I think it may make me a little uncomfortable, as, at this point anyway, I don't think there are any confidentiality issues to be concerned with in closing this. - jc37 14:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Ironholds (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised I didn't link to it, sorry about that - Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013/Closure. - jc37 03:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My withdrawal

In light of the concerns brought up, I am hereby withdrawing as a closer.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did this get reopened?

Currently, the RfC says it will close in 366 hours. The old {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}} seems to have disappeared, and there is no indication that it is not accepting new !votes. Has something changed? Are we accepting !votes or aren't we? --N Y Kevin 21:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Just a bug that I just fixed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is happening

It is July 18, and I have seen no indication anything has happened since the 3rd on here or the closers' public discussion page. While I possibly am rushing to conclusions too quickly, it would be nice if someone personally involved with the closing process could comment on how much work has been done so far and give an estimated timetable if possible. --Thebirdlover (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be done by now but people didn't want me as a closer.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side ... six years ago, we had no trouble finding closers for big RfCs like this one ... we had plenty of people who were sure they had all the answers and that everything would turn out just great. People are more sober now ... and that's better, in some ways, but it sure has been difficult finding closers lately. Jc hasn't edited since the 7th, but let's give him a few days to respond, then we'll carry on. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ask him if he'll make the close in reasonable time & find another closer if he says no? --Синкретик (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I were reinstated as closer, this will close as no consensus.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...which would open you up to the accusation that you only closed it as "no consensus" to prove you weren't biased. Your previous vote on the subject means that you can't win if you close, no matter how careful you are or what your decision is. As I said before, I think you have honest intentions, but I don't think you should close. Ozob (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. I also can't remember the rationale I had carefully written to explain the no consensus.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 04:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to give time for anyone else to step forward and close too if they wished. As that doesn't appear to be happening, I guess I'll see what I can type up. - jc37 04:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

Closure (edit) and pasted to the rfc here. - jc37 00:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the time you've invested in this. Ozob (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, Jc. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me as well, since I withdrew due to concerns raised by the community.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kind of you all to say. I keep seeing such positivity, I might get motivated to go see about helping out with other closes : ) - jc37 18:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not likely going to close the follow up RfC, I'll create a draft of the followup RfC at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013/Criteria for Use.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678:, please don't. You're supposedly neutral on this topic; let someone who is passionate about it take it to the next level, if they really really feel they must. Don't create an RFC just because. Look at the top of this RFC. We have been discussing PC with RFCs pretty much nonstop for the last several years. Risker (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I was actually going to build to put it to rest. :p I had a few ideas of limited use case of when to apply PC2.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I won't claim any expertise in diplomacy, I think I would agree with risker that you probably shouldn't be the one to start the rfc. But if you want to contribute ideas for the follow up rfc, then please, start a talk page discussion somewhere. Community collaboration is typically a good thing.

As an aside, I thought you exhibited your ability for discernment in stepping aside in this case. Such discernment is one of the things we look for in closers. So I just wanted to offer you kudos in coming to that decision. - jc37 18:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]