Verifiability mediation (
general talk) Work groups: one ( talk) • two ( talk) • three ( talk) • four ( talk) RfC draft |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result was base the RfC on proposal F/G. The proposal being drafted at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/RfC draft has the support of all the editors who participated in this discussion, even if not all of those editors think it is the best possible solution. Although individual editors expressed support for other solutions, none of those solutions have the explicit support of all the editors active in the discussion. I also note that turnout for this discussion was low, and that none of the mediation participants that were previously involved have come back to comment. I think this is a good indicator that, in North8000's words, it is "time to get this baby moving". Let's shift our focus to final tweaks of the RfC wording, and to practical matters such as where to host the RfC and where to advertise it. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 09:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
---
Hello everyone! It looks like things have stalled somewhat over the last few days, so I'm starting this discussion as an attempt to breathe some life back into the proceedings. In this discussion I'd like us to decide once and for all about what combination of drafts and questions we should include in the proposed verifiability RfC(s). The discussion has become quite complicated, so this is my attempt at simplifying things so that the various proposals can be more easily compared and commented on by mediation participants who have not yet been active in discussing step 7. My hope is that by getting wider input from mediation participants that it will be easier to find a consensus about which structure to use.
I have made a summary of the different proposals below. Feel free to tweak them if I have copied any details wrongly or taken anything out of context. If you think of a completely new idea, then by all means include it. It's probably best to outline it in the discussion, though, to avoid any confusion. I have also made a very brief summary of the arguments for each type of RfC. As the summary is very brief, there are inevitably points that I have left out - feel free to add more if you think of any.
Finally, in the comments section, please indicate which proposal or proposals you would like to use in the RfC, and include your reasoning. Your comments should take into account the various arguments that have been put forward for the different types of proposals. After everyone has commented I will weigh the strength of the arguments and see if a consensus has been reached. You don't need to include all the previous arguments made on this talk page as part of step 7, as I will be taking these into account as well. If you want to include a short summary of your position, though, it might make my task easier! And as usual, let me know if you have any questions or comments about the process. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposal A
|
---|
I'll describe it followed by arguments in key areas. Have the RFC consist of the 5 drafts plus the one currently in the policy. The sequence should be random. For clarity each should get a dispassionate neutral 1-sentence explanation regarding what it is/does structurally in relation to VNT. Make these things emphatically clear in the RFC:
When closing, assign numerical values of 4,3,2,1,0 to the choices respectively. Tally them up. The one with the highest number goes in. |
Proposal B
|
---|
Question 1: Please select group(s) that best match your views and note your views on them.
Question 2: Please use this free text area to discuss the reasons for your choice of group or make any other comments you may have. |
Proposal C
|
---|
|
Proposal D
|
---|
Please read the following four drafts:
Question 1: Please add as many or as few comments as you wish to the following headings:-
Question 2: Please select group(s) that best match your views and note your views on them.
Question 3: If you wish, please use this free text area to discuss the reasons for your choice of group or make any other comments you may have. |
Proposal E
|
---|
|
Proposal F
|
---|
|
Proposal G
|
---|
|
These arguments are a vast simplification of all the discussion that has been held about this issue. While I feel that they sum up the discussion that has taken place so far, they should not be seen as an alternative to reading the full talk page. All participants are invited to add other points to the list - just remember to sign your additions so that people are aware of who added them. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
— Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
— Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
— Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
— Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone clarify what is meant by "the information in an article". Does it refer to:
For example, "According to Brie(1995), the Moon is made of cheese" [1]
Articles often present information that is not true (eg. Phlogiston theory, astrology, Time cube).-- Iantresman ( talk) 12:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
In the history of the RfC there is the sentence, [3] "A previous RfC in October–December 2011 did not reach consensus as to whether the opening paragraph of WP:V should or should not be revised in order to address concerns amongst many members of the community about possible misinterpretation of VnT."
Actually, this is a false statement since the previous RfC reached consensus that the opening paragraph should be revised according to the proposal. What happened was that the three closers incorrectly stated that it didn't, and because of this the proposal was not implemented. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
If we want to emphasise the controversial nature of the previous RfC, the best way would probably be the same way we do things like this in articles, i.e. outlining the actual history in more detail. For example, we could say that the previous RfC was commented on by over 300 users, closed as "support change", the close was reverted, and it was later closed as "no consensus" by three admins - the first multiple-admin close on the English Wikipedia. (At least, I'm not aware of any earlier multi-admin closes.) However, this would go against Tryptofish's desire to mention as little history as possible. Maybe a way to satisfy Tryptofish and also satisfy Bob's concerns about WP:STICK arguments, etc., could be to focus on how the current RfC is different from the Oct-Dec 2011 one. For example, we could re-jig the intro text to emphasise that while the previous RfC only had one possible draft to comment on, this one has a range of choices, and that this RfC differs from the previous one in that it also seeks to find editors' general opinions about if/how VnT should be used in the policy lede. Does this sound reasonable/workable to you both? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 11:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
In the RfC intro is the paragraph,
It is a discussion and a vote. To say it is not a vote deprecates the significance of the number of editors supporting or opposing. It also justifies closers ruling one way or the other with little consideration of the number of editors supporting or opposing, which is basically what happened at the last RfC. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If we're looking for policies about voting, then we have WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We also have the long-standing essays on meta m:Don't vote on everything and m:Polls are evil. Still, I don't think either of you are actually arguing that the number of editors in support of any given point does not matter. You both seem to be in agreement that numbers do actually make a difference - correct me if I'm wrong here. I have to agree with Tryptofish, though, that the phrase "not a vote" is firmly embedded into Wikipedian culture, and I have never seen it be controversial before. Maybe this is based on a misreading of Wikipedia:Consensus? That page doesn't say that editor numbers don't matter, just that they shouldn't be used in substitute of reasoned argument. I still think we could clear this little disagreement up relatively peacefully by just tweaking the wording a little bit, though. How about using something similar to the wording in {{ Not a ballot}}, for example? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 14:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result was to use protection/transclusion. This was a close call, and as I said below, both sides have good arguments. As I couldn't really see any policy-based reason to favour one argument over the other, I based this close purely on the numbers who commented and the strength of their opinions. Those were:
Not the widest of margins, to be sure, but I felt it was enough to make the decision. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Now that the basic structure of the RfC has been settled, it's time to focus on the last few specific things we need to do before we put the RfC up live. One thing that we haven't worked out yet is where to actually put the RfC. We could put it at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, like the previous RfC, or it could have its own page entirely, maybe at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/2012 RfC or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Verifiability policy lede 2012. The location of the RfC ties in with the issue of whether we should fully protect the RfC page and only allow comments on transcluded subpages. If we have the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability then it won't be possible to use protection in this was, as doing that would disable comments on aspects of the policy other than the lede for the duration of the discussion. However, the opinion has been expressed that leaving the whole RfC editable would be more in line with the open spirit of Wikipedia. What does everyone think about this? Can you think of other arguments for or against protection or having the RfC at WT:V? And can you think of any other possible titles that we might use? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 10:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
As a follow-up question, what is the decision about what the page will be called? (I mean, whether or not it will be connected to WT:V.) It's a smaller point, and I personally don't care about it, but I just figure we should know. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
On the draft page, it says that the RfC will be advertised at: " WT:V, WT:NPOV, WT:NOR, WP:Village pump (proposals), WP:Centralized discussion, WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals, and through a Watchlist notice." Does anyone have suggestions for other places we might advertise the RfC, or disagree with any of the above suggestions? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 11:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently in the RfC draft, editors are asked to indicate whether they endorse, oppose, or are neutral about, the following statements:
Would any editors like to change any of these statements, or add any more? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 11:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been wondering whether it would be good idea to include a few more general questions before asking about how people would like to formulate policy. I would like to know what the mainstream position is within the community about some questions underlying this dispute. What is the correct approach to verifiable inaccurate material? How can such material be identified? Does NOR apply only to inclusion of material? I'm not sure these are the best formulations or the central questions, but my understanding is that there actually are slightly different readings of the classical VNT sentence. It may be useful to clarify which reading is most widely supported before asking whether one should clarify that sentence in a certain way. What do you think, should one directly ask at least one such question? Regards, Vesal ( talk) 13:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
There are places in the RFC where one can express one's opinion on what VNT is supposed to mean, but the closers will have a very hard time assessing which interpretation of VNT is more widely held. What bothers me is perhaps that question five is assuming a certain interpretation, so one could want to oppose it either because one finds a clarification unnecessary (but one agrees with the clarification), or because one disagrees with the clarification. I suggest replacing question 5 with the questions:
This last question is somewhat superfluous, but it does clarify the previous question: what does it mean that VNT means "only" xyz; what else could it mean? Well, the next question suggests a reading of VNT that means something more. This is the alleged "misunderstanding" of VNT, and it would be good to know how many, and if any experienced editors, subscribe to this view. Regards, Vesal ( talk) 02:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The questions involving "but also that editor's assessment of.....falsehood should influence neither inclusion nor exclusion of material in Wikipedia articles. " are about created a really huge bad new policy which exists nowhere except in (mis-)interpretation of VNT. And introduced in a somewhat stealthy and biased way (blended into things that wp:ver does say.) If we're going to jump the tracks and start proposing controversial huge new policies, we need to handle this not like the above, but in a thorough neutral way. Better yet, don't start doing that here. I feel strongly about this. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the last question might be too confusing, unclear, compounded and non-germane. Even if the thought is good. What is it really asking? And half of it could be taken as weighing in on wp:att, but what would that exactly mean? The particular linked version? Or the common meaning of wp:att for those who remember (which is combining wp:ver and wp:nor). Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for my (almost) absence over the past couple of weeks; this was due to my mother's death and funeral taking priority over WikiWork.
I have another statement (for the strong oppose, oppose, neutral, support, strong support options) which I think is very important to add. This is from the WP:AUTIE POV, but applies to other editors as well. Here it is:
Can this please be added? As it stands, many parts of our policies are (quite unnecessarily) Native-English-speaker-centric, neurotypical-centric, and college-education-level centric. This is the cause of a lot of problems which could be completely removed with a bit more thought. Pesky ( talk) 08:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In general terms, this should really apply to all our policies and guidelines (not going to happen in a hurry, heh! But that's the idea). In specific terms, it's with reference to VnT here. I expect that if we inserted "(for example, "Verifiability, not truth")" after "... the thinking processes" that would make it better. I'd like to keep the autism mention in there if at all possible, because we have a lot of Aspie and Autie people – Wikipedia is a real honey-trap for such folks (including me!) Maybe it would be better to have the Wikilink for Autism spectrum go to the essay (like this) instead? It makes it more applicable to Auties-in-Residence at Wikipedia, with a bit more insight as to why this is important, for anyone who clicks the link. (And thanks for the condolences, guys. It feels very strange not being a full-time carer for my mother any more; more spare time and freedom, less sense of purpose.) Pesky ( talk) 04:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I came here casually, and I apologise in advance if the following is OT or otherwise unhelpful:
I agree that "anything-proof" clarity is important in Wikipedia policies, given the peculiarities of a forum communication environment, coupled with the sorts of issues Pesky's referring to. Not to mention defence against POV-pushing etc... Legitimate misinterpretations, whether accidental or deliberate, aggravate many situations on Wikipedia, imo.
For me, verifiability (as distinct from "truth") would be a rather different proposition from verifiability, not truth. I think some rewording along those lines might provide another way of encouraging readers to consider the underlying concept rather than wed a simplistic (imo) slogan.
2c,— MistyMorn ( talk) 12:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently on the draft page, it says "Upon closing, all user comments will be read carefully, and consensus will be determined by a panel of three uninvolved administrators: (name), (name), and (name)." Are we really going to be in a position to name the closers before the RfC starts? I thought that it might be a better idea to ask at WP:AN maybe a week before the RfC is due to close. We can always add the names to the RfC after they've been decided. What do others think about this? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 14:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
In a discussion on Jimbo's talk page, one of the closers of the large RfC re the first sentence made the following comment, "As one of the closing admins, I did look at the numbers first of all and thought it was a clear situation. Indeed, when I first saw HJ's conclusions, I voiced my concern that a no consensus was not the right decision. But after reading the votes - a very large proportion of the supporters either supported with provisos or stated that they didn't like it, but vaguely preferred it to what we currently have." ( diff for this comment and link to whole section of Jimbo's talk page that contains this comment)
So I decided to check this and went through all of the support votes. The following tables divide the 276 support votes into three categories: 1) Definite support, 225; 2) Support and wanting more change, 26; 3) Support with reservations, 25. (Feel free to check or spot check the tables.) This result shows that the comment of the closing administrator is not true regarding, "a very large proportion of the supporters either supported with provisos or stated that they didn't like it, but vaguely preferred it to what we currently have."
The following 3 tables divide the 276 support comments into 3 categories of 225, 26 and 25 respectively. The last column on the right of each table has cumulative totals for that table.
1) Definite support:
001 | 002 | 003 | 008 | 009 | 010 | 011 | 012 | 016 | 017 | 021 | 022 | 023 | 025 | 028 | 030 | 033 | 034 | 036 | 037 | 038 | 039 | 040 | 041 | 042 | 25 | |
043 | 044 | 047 | 049 | 051 | 052 | 053 | 054 | 055 | 056 | 057 | 058 | 059 | 060 | 061 | 062 | 063 | 064 | 065 | 066 | 068 | 069 | 070 | 071 | 072 | 50 | |
073 | 074 | 075 | 076 | 077 | 078 | 079 | 081 | 082 | 083 | 084 | 085 | 086 | 087 | 088 | 089 | 090 | 091 | 093 | 094 | 095 | 096 | 097 | 098 | 099 | 75 | |
100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 126 | 127 | 129 | 100 | |
130 | 131 | 132 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 160 | 161 | 125 | |
162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 180 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 150 | |
192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 175 | |
221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 239 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 200 | |
248 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 267 | 268 | 269 | 270 | 271 | 273 | 274 | 275 | 276 | 225 |
2) Support and wanting more change:
004 | 005 | 007 | 014 | 017 | 020 | 045 | 067 | 092 | 125 | 128 | 133 | 138 | 158 | 168 | 178 | 181 | 204 | 205 | 209 | 215 | 238 | 240 | 249 | 266 | 25 | |
272 | 26 |
3) Support with reservations:
006 | 013 | 015 | 018 | 019 | 024 | 026 | 027 | 029 | 031 | 032 | 046 | 048 | 050 | 080 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 139 | 151 | 152 | 159 | 179 | 188 | 255 | 25 |
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. So far, I don't see how 3 impartial competent closers can be assembled for the RfC. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 03:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake, so now we're not going to have closers announced at the beginning??? I object very strongly! Mr. Stradivarius, you cannot determine consensus simply by blowing whichever way the wind blows. There is a complete imbalance between the arguments in this thread between those that argue for three closers named from the start, and those who are simply making a WP:IDONTLIKEIT gripe about what happened last time. Yes, I know that Sarek made the right call last time. I've said so, repeatedly. You can look back and see me say it. But that isn't the point. The point is how to get a good outcome this time, that will be accepted by the community. Does anyone really think that if we just postpone the decision now, that everything will be peaceful when we do get around to selecting closer(s)? Leave it open at the start, and there will be attempts to game it while the RfC is in progress. Ask Sarek to do it (didn't he resign after the last time?), and large numbers of people will complain. Better to get it settled from the beginning. And let me point out something more. The problems with the last RfC were not the fault of the closers. It was the fault of the persons responsible for re-opening it after Sarek closed it. Once the three closers came in, they had to deal with what existed already, what had been created by the re-opening. I know that it is a parlor game amongst WP:V aficionados to demonize the three closers, but they actually acted reasonably under the circumstances. Their arguments were actually reasonable. Go the way this discussion now seems to be going, and I predict the new RfC will get messed up the same as the last one did. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm also in agreement (again!) with Tryptofish about the fact that by the time we had the three-closers situation, the RfC had (been) mutated into a different monster altogether, with its purpose and intent and suchlike having been misrepresented (or simply misinterpreted) giving it a wholly different "feel". It had turned into a pig of a thing to try to close, which bore little more than a passing similarity to what it had been before it was viewed predominantly through shit-coloured spectacles. I, too, think that what they did was reasonable in respect of the New Monster which had been created, though it wouldn't have been reasonable in respect of the original unadulterated animal. Our biggest challenge here is to take whatever steps we can to remove the shit-coloured spectacles from the viewers, and ensure that they see The New Animal in its genuine light, with a truly objective analysis of the comments from all sides on the last one. There's little more effective than verifiable facts to dispel inaccurate memories and myths. Pesky ( talk) 09:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that we may be mis-remembering stuff even more quickly, like on (this) the same page 1-2 days after it happened. NOBODY accused the three closers of acting improperly. About the roughest thing said by anybody was by me, and that was (bolding/italics added) "Third, anybody even innocently associated with that travesty series of events that began with the reversion of the proper close would be like throwing gasoline on a fire." And I think that BobK basically just said that one of them made errors. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 10:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This has likely has been discussed but just looking at it from the outside. It would be easier if the discussion sections for each proposal were directly under each of the draft sections, instead of all the drafts first and then all the discussions. Just sayin. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out, there are fundamental problems with proceeding. Was this mediation prompted by a dispute about the "under discussion" tag that is currently in WP:V? Perhaps an RfC on not placing "under discussion" tags at WP:V would get consensus and settle that dispute.
In any case, instead of pursuing an RfC on 5 options that has no chance of reaching consensus on any of them, the ideas from all the discussions here could be used to suggest incremental edits at WP:V. The current state at the protected Verifiability policy page of first making edit requests at WT:V and getting consensus, before an admin would implement it, could be continued for desired policy stability. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
As we have now found three previously uninvolved admins who are willing to close the RfC, I can see no further barriers to us putting it up live. I'm going to copy the draft over to the RfC location, and change the wikicode so that it will work in the actual RfC location. For now, I will leave the draft notice on, and leave it without an RfC template. Please check over the links, check that all the drafts are showing the correct content, and check that all the other little details are displaying/working correctly. Unless anything urgent turns up, I will remove the draft notice, put up an RfC template, and ask for the main RfC page to be protected, at 10:00 am on Thursday June 28 (UTC). I would also like you to use this time to iron out any small issues with wording that remain, such as brought up at the end of the "closers" section by North8000. If you need more time, then of course I will consider it, but I think two days should be enough. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 13:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm reverting the changes to Question #7 for further discussion.
North, if you didn't realize that #7 had gone into the draft, that was your own oversight, because it was raised for discussion on this talk page before it went in. It is in the thread "More general questions" (subsection of "Finalizing the statements in part 2").
Tryptofish's addition is a valiant attempt at compromise, but it makes #7 much too long and convoluted.
There needs to be an alternative to the view presented in #6. And it needs to be a simple statement, not a book.
Kalidasa 777 (
talk)
00:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a solution, albeit at the cost of lengthening the RfC a bit more, would be to make the list of views/questions an even dozen. By this, I mean to leave #7 as Kalidasa has reverted it, but insert a new #8 (bringing the total number to 12). The new 8 would be something like what I had tried to add in response to North's concern: "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then I would like it to explain that this does not mean that material must always be included so long as it is verifiable." As far as I can tell, that would address everyone's concerns, and would have the added virtue of breaking down the issues so that they don't get mixed together. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Here are a few possibilities, good and bad:
North8000 ( talk) 18:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just added Pesky's question to the RfC draft, as there wasn't any objection above, and it looked like it was in danger of being forgotten. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, please let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ( have a chat) 06:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The RfC has officially started. Thank you all very much for bearing with me through all of this! I have one more favour to ask, though - could someone help me to add the advertisements to all the different pages listed in the RfC instructions? (I should have been in bed hours ago, and I have work tomorrow.) — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 16:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who feels like thanking Mr Strad for bringing the process to this point. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 06:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that the policy talk pages should get another notice that is more visible and direct. Like a RFC template or something. Right now there is just text; most of them where I just copied Mr. Stradavarius's text in, in response to their request for help. North8000 ( talk) 16:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
We have finally finished setting up the RfC and all its trappings - thank you all very much for your efforts. You have all put an enormous amount of work into this, and that deserves some serious recognition. You've done a great job. Now, technically this mediation was due to finish after the RfC ended, with a step nine where we break down the results. However, circumstances have changed a little. Actually, this may be the last mediation that ever happens at MedCab. I didn't want to reveal this while we were still working on the RfC, but plans to close MedCab down and mark it as historical have been under way for a while now. This is all tied in with a planned large-scale restructuring of the dispute resolution system on Wikipedia, and you can expect to see some interesting developments on this front in the next few months.
To cut a long story short, this mediation has been holding up some of those plans, and to get things moving I'm going to close the mediation down now, rather than wait for the end of the RfC. But don't worry - we will still go through step nine as we would have done had it been hosted here. All this means is that we will hold the discussion at the RfC talk page, rather than here. I hope that no-one minds too much about the change of venue, and I'm open to other suggestions if anyone thinks somewhere else may be better. I'll still be keeping a close eye on the RfC, and you can always message me on my talk page with any questions. Thanks again for all your time and patience. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
When it comes up, Template:Spa is useful for the RfC. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the earlier post (at the beginning of this section) I think it's a bit more than an SPA situation; they are obviously not new to Wikipedia. And have developed very strong views of the policy and potential changes during their one page one day editing history. :-) But so far there doesn't seem to be a rash of these. North8000 ( talk) 10:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
In the past, whenever there have been borderline spa comments, I've typically commented to just note them, and the closers will assess as appropriate. So we can just let them... Oh wait (looks at the top of the RFC again) when did I become a "them"? lol (goes and crawls back under my lurker stone... - jc37 18:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I realise the RfC is far from over, and I'm far from a neutral party so I'm not best placed to judge the emerging consensus on the RfC page--but equally, I think it's not premature to say that we can see the future shape of WP:V emerging. I know I pushed hard for View 11 to be included, and I see that on the percentages users might seem to be in favour of a large-scale revamp of policies, but the relatively low participation in View 11 implies that there's not much actual appetite for this approach. We're still going to have WP:V in roughly its present form (as well as WP:NOR and WP:NOT). With regard to WP:V's future lede, I see Option D as the emerging winner. I'm disappointed to see that views 4 and 10 are inconclusive, so I'll take that to mean that there's no consensus in favour of cutting VnT out of the policy completely. The emerging consensus at View 1 instructs us to remove it from the lede.
Since there's no other obvious place to put VnT, I propose that we could revert back to Blueboar's compromise, putting VnT as a separate paragraph directly below the Option D lede. The result looks like this... subject to the rest of the discussion and the closers' views, what do we all think? Workable?— S Marshall T/ C 22:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally with hindsight I think view 3 isn't going to be much help to the closers; people are opposing it for diametrically opposite reasons.— S Marshall T/ C 18:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If, amongst us all, we can work on a really effective and creative and non-upsetting way of bridging that enormous gap, it will most probably be one of the best things that each of us, as individuals, has ever managed to do. It's not impossible, and it's a goal very much worth striving for. A huge challenge; I've always found that the best way to look at huge challenges is to try hard to avoid thinking "That can't be done!", and work from "OK, if someone held a gun to my head and said it had to be done, no matter what, then how might it be possible to do it?" Pesky ( talk) 04:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Today, the watchlist notice ended. I'd like to lobby us for requesting a repeat posting of the watchlist notice for maybe 7 days at the end of the RfC. As we've already discussed, it's a good idea to advertise all we can. Let no one have a valid reason to say that they didn't know about it! Also, one user asked at the RfC talk page about having one of those top-of-page banners like the ones used for fundraising. Personally, I think that would be excessive, but I figure I'd point it out here, in case anyone else wants to argue for it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
In other words, I wouldn't worry about it now, and the usual inrush of comments as a discussion nears a close is likely to alleviate those concerns anyways. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I just realized that the RfC is going to close in four days! We really need to have the watchlist notice re-posted ASAP, including saying what the close date is, in my opinion. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I want to say a very big congratulations to everyone who worked on this! A job well done, and we should all be proud! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a zillion people are to be thanked for their efforts and participation. North8000 ( talk) 19:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
In the mediation agenda I included a step nine - a breakdown of the RfC results. However, everyone seems really quite pleased with the results, so I'm not sure it's actually necessary. Maybe it will be enough for everyone to take a month or so to let the results soak in, and then tentatively discuss the issues the closers raised on the verifiability talk page? If people would like my help in deciding how to approach future discussions, though, I would be more than willing to give it. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Congratulations North8000 ( talk) 12:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think we all need to just sit back and digest our champagne. After a reasonable interval, it would be very helpful if we could discuss here whether further discussions should be started, but there's absolutely nothing urgent about it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Verifiability mediation (
general talk) Work groups: one ( talk) • two ( talk) • three ( talk) • four ( talk) RfC draft |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result was base the RfC on proposal F/G. The proposal being drafted at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/RfC draft has the support of all the editors who participated in this discussion, even if not all of those editors think it is the best possible solution. Although individual editors expressed support for other solutions, none of those solutions have the explicit support of all the editors active in the discussion. I also note that turnout for this discussion was low, and that none of the mediation participants that were previously involved have come back to comment. I think this is a good indicator that, in North8000's words, it is "time to get this baby moving". Let's shift our focus to final tweaks of the RfC wording, and to practical matters such as where to host the RfC and where to advertise it. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 09:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
---
Hello everyone! It looks like things have stalled somewhat over the last few days, so I'm starting this discussion as an attempt to breathe some life back into the proceedings. In this discussion I'd like us to decide once and for all about what combination of drafts and questions we should include in the proposed verifiability RfC(s). The discussion has become quite complicated, so this is my attempt at simplifying things so that the various proposals can be more easily compared and commented on by mediation participants who have not yet been active in discussing step 7. My hope is that by getting wider input from mediation participants that it will be easier to find a consensus about which structure to use.
I have made a summary of the different proposals below. Feel free to tweak them if I have copied any details wrongly or taken anything out of context. If you think of a completely new idea, then by all means include it. It's probably best to outline it in the discussion, though, to avoid any confusion. I have also made a very brief summary of the arguments for each type of RfC. As the summary is very brief, there are inevitably points that I have left out - feel free to add more if you think of any.
Finally, in the comments section, please indicate which proposal or proposals you would like to use in the RfC, and include your reasoning. Your comments should take into account the various arguments that have been put forward for the different types of proposals. After everyone has commented I will weigh the strength of the arguments and see if a consensus has been reached. You don't need to include all the previous arguments made on this talk page as part of step 7, as I will be taking these into account as well. If you want to include a short summary of your position, though, it might make my task easier! And as usual, let me know if you have any questions or comments about the process. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposal A
|
---|
I'll describe it followed by arguments in key areas. Have the RFC consist of the 5 drafts plus the one currently in the policy. The sequence should be random. For clarity each should get a dispassionate neutral 1-sentence explanation regarding what it is/does structurally in relation to VNT. Make these things emphatically clear in the RFC:
When closing, assign numerical values of 4,3,2,1,0 to the choices respectively. Tally them up. The one with the highest number goes in. |
Proposal B
|
---|
Question 1: Please select group(s) that best match your views and note your views on them.
Question 2: Please use this free text area to discuss the reasons for your choice of group or make any other comments you may have. |
Proposal C
|
---|
|
Proposal D
|
---|
Please read the following four drafts:
Question 1: Please add as many or as few comments as you wish to the following headings:-
Question 2: Please select group(s) that best match your views and note your views on them.
Question 3: If you wish, please use this free text area to discuss the reasons for your choice of group or make any other comments you may have. |
Proposal E
|
---|
|
Proposal F
|
---|
|
Proposal G
|
---|
|
These arguments are a vast simplification of all the discussion that has been held about this issue. While I feel that they sum up the discussion that has taken place so far, they should not be seen as an alternative to reading the full talk page. All participants are invited to add other points to the list - just remember to sign your additions so that people are aware of who added them. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
— Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
— Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
— Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
— Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone clarify what is meant by "the information in an article". Does it refer to:
For example, "According to Brie(1995), the Moon is made of cheese" [1]
Articles often present information that is not true (eg. Phlogiston theory, astrology, Time cube).-- Iantresman ( talk) 12:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
In the history of the RfC there is the sentence, [3] "A previous RfC in October–December 2011 did not reach consensus as to whether the opening paragraph of WP:V should or should not be revised in order to address concerns amongst many members of the community about possible misinterpretation of VnT."
Actually, this is a false statement since the previous RfC reached consensus that the opening paragraph should be revised according to the proposal. What happened was that the three closers incorrectly stated that it didn't, and because of this the proposal was not implemented. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
If we want to emphasise the controversial nature of the previous RfC, the best way would probably be the same way we do things like this in articles, i.e. outlining the actual history in more detail. For example, we could say that the previous RfC was commented on by over 300 users, closed as "support change", the close was reverted, and it was later closed as "no consensus" by three admins - the first multiple-admin close on the English Wikipedia. (At least, I'm not aware of any earlier multi-admin closes.) However, this would go against Tryptofish's desire to mention as little history as possible. Maybe a way to satisfy Tryptofish and also satisfy Bob's concerns about WP:STICK arguments, etc., could be to focus on how the current RfC is different from the Oct-Dec 2011 one. For example, we could re-jig the intro text to emphasise that while the previous RfC only had one possible draft to comment on, this one has a range of choices, and that this RfC differs from the previous one in that it also seeks to find editors' general opinions about if/how VnT should be used in the policy lede. Does this sound reasonable/workable to you both? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 11:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
In the RfC intro is the paragraph,
It is a discussion and a vote. To say it is not a vote deprecates the significance of the number of editors supporting or opposing. It also justifies closers ruling one way or the other with little consideration of the number of editors supporting or opposing, which is basically what happened at the last RfC. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 11:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If we're looking for policies about voting, then we have WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We also have the long-standing essays on meta m:Don't vote on everything and m:Polls are evil. Still, I don't think either of you are actually arguing that the number of editors in support of any given point does not matter. You both seem to be in agreement that numbers do actually make a difference - correct me if I'm wrong here. I have to agree with Tryptofish, though, that the phrase "not a vote" is firmly embedded into Wikipedian culture, and I have never seen it be controversial before. Maybe this is based on a misreading of Wikipedia:Consensus? That page doesn't say that editor numbers don't matter, just that they shouldn't be used in substitute of reasoned argument. I still think we could clear this little disagreement up relatively peacefully by just tweaking the wording a little bit, though. How about using something similar to the wording in {{ Not a ballot}}, for example? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 14:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result was to use protection/transclusion. This was a close call, and as I said below, both sides have good arguments. As I couldn't really see any policy-based reason to favour one argument over the other, I based this close purely on the numbers who commented and the strength of their opinions. Those were:
Not the widest of margins, to be sure, but I felt it was enough to make the decision. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Now that the basic structure of the RfC has been settled, it's time to focus on the last few specific things we need to do before we put the RfC up live. One thing that we haven't worked out yet is where to actually put the RfC. We could put it at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, like the previous RfC, or it could have its own page entirely, maybe at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/2012 RfC or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Verifiability policy lede 2012. The location of the RfC ties in with the issue of whether we should fully protect the RfC page and only allow comments on transcluded subpages. If we have the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability then it won't be possible to use protection in this was, as doing that would disable comments on aspects of the policy other than the lede for the duration of the discussion. However, the opinion has been expressed that leaving the whole RfC editable would be more in line with the open spirit of Wikipedia. What does everyone think about this? Can you think of other arguments for or against protection or having the RfC at WT:V? And can you think of any other possible titles that we might use? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 10:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
As a follow-up question, what is the decision about what the page will be called? (I mean, whether or not it will be connected to WT:V.) It's a smaller point, and I personally don't care about it, but I just figure we should know. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
On the draft page, it says that the RfC will be advertised at: " WT:V, WT:NPOV, WT:NOR, WP:Village pump (proposals), WP:Centralized discussion, WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals, and through a Watchlist notice." Does anyone have suggestions for other places we might advertise the RfC, or disagree with any of the above suggestions? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 11:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently in the RfC draft, editors are asked to indicate whether they endorse, oppose, or are neutral about, the following statements:
Would any editors like to change any of these statements, or add any more? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 11:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been wondering whether it would be good idea to include a few more general questions before asking about how people would like to formulate policy. I would like to know what the mainstream position is within the community about some questions underlying this dispute. What is the correct approach to verifiable inaccurate material? How can such material be identified? Does NOR apply only to inclusion of material? I'm not sure these are the best formulations or the central questions, but my understanding is that there actually are slightly different readings of the classical VNT sentence. It may be useful to clarify which reading is most widely supported before asking whether one should clarify that sentence in a certain way. What do you think, should one directly ask at least one such question? Regards, Vesal ( talk) 13:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
There are places in the RFC where one can express one's opinion on what VNT is supposed to mean, but the closers will have a very hard time assessing which interpretation of VNT is more widely held. What bothers me is perhaps that question five is assuming a certain interpretation, so one could want to oppose it either because one finds a clarification unnecessary (but one agrees with the clarification), or because one disagrees with the clarification. I suggest replacing question 5 with the questions:
This last question is somewhat superfluous, but it does clarify the previous question: what does it mean that VNT means "only" xyz; what else could it mean? Well, the next question suggests a reading of VNT that means something more. This is the alleged "misunderstanding" of VNT, and it would be good to know how many, and if any experienced editors, subscribe to this view. Regards, Vesal ( talk) 02:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The questions involving "but also that editor's assessment of.....falsehood should influence neither inclusion nor exclusion of material in Wikipedia articles. " are about created a really huge bad new policy which exists nowhere except in (mis-)interpretation of VNT. And introduced in a somewhat stealthy and biased way (blended into things that wp:ver does say.) If we're going to jump the tracks and start proposing controversial huge new policies, we need to handle this not like the above, but in a thorough neutral way. Better yet, don't start doing that here. I feel strongly about this. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the last question might be too confusing, unclear, compounded and non-germane. Even if the thought is good. What is it really asking? And half of it could be taken as weighing in on wp:att, but what would that exactly mean? The particular linked version? Or the common meaning of wp:att for those who remember (which is combining wp:ver and wp:nor). Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for my (almost) absence over the past couple of weeks; this was due to my mother's death and funeral taking priority over WikiWork.
I have another statement (for the strong oppose, oppose, neutral, support, strong support options) which I think is very important to add. This is from the WP:AUTIE POV, but applies to other editors as well. Here it is:
Can this please be added? As it stands, many parts of our policies are (quite unnecessarily) Native-English-speaker-centric, neurotypical-centric, and college-education-level centric. This is the cause of a lot of problems which could be completely removed with a bit more thought. Pesky ( talk) 08:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In general terms, this should really apply to all our policies and guidelines (not going to happen in a hurry, heh! But that's the idea). In specific terms, it's with reference to VnT here. I expect that if we inserted "(for example, "Verifiability, not truth")" after "... the thinking processes" that would make it better. I'd like to keep the autism mention in there if at all possible, because we have a lot of Aspie and Autie people – Wikipedia is a real honey-trap for such folks (including me!) Maybe it would be better to have the Wikilink for Autism spectrum go to the essay (like this) instead? It makes it more applicable to Auties-in-Residence at Wikipedia, with a bit more insight as to why this is important, for anyone who clicks the link. (And thanks for the condolences, guys. It feels very strange not being a full-time carer for my mother any more; more spare time and freedom, less sense of purpose.) Pesky ( talk) 04:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I came here casually, and I apologise in advance if the following is OT or otherwise unhelpful:
I agree that "anything-proof" clarity is important in Wikipedia policies, given the peculiarities of a forum communication environment, coupled with the sorts of issues Pesky's referring to. Not to mention defence against POV-pushing etc... Legitimate misinterpretations, whether accidental or deliberate, aggravate many situations on Wikipedia, imo.
For me, verifiability (as distinct from "truth") would be a rather different proposition from verifiability, not truth. I think some rewording along those lines might provide another way of encouraging readers to consider the underlying concept rather than wed a simplistic (imo) slogan.
2c,— MistyMorn ( talk) 12:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently on the draft page, it says "Upon closing, all user comments will be read carefully, and consensus will be determined by a panel of three uninvolved administrators: (name), (name), and (name)." Are we really going to be in a position to name the closers before the RfC starts? I thought that it might be a better idea to ask at WP:AN maybe a week before the RfC is due to close. We can always add the names to the RfC after they've been decided. What do others think about this? — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 14:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
In a discussion on Jimbo's talk page, one of the closers of the large RfC re the first sentence made the following comment, "As one of the closing admins, I did look at the numbers first of all and thought it was a clear situation. Indeed, when I first saw HJ's conclusions, I voiced my concern that a no consensus was not the right decision. But after reading the votes - a very large proportion of the supporters either supported with provisos or stated that they didn't like it, but vaguely preferred it to what we currently have." ( diff for this comment and link to whole section of Jimbo's talk page that contains this comment)
So I decided to check this and went through all of the support votes. The following tables divide the 276 support votes into three categories: 1) Definite support, 225; 2) Support and wanting more change, 26; 3) Support with reservations, 25. (Feel free to check or spot check the tables.) This result shows that the comment of the closing administrator is not true regarding, "a very large proportion of the supporters either supported with provisos or stated that they didn't like it, but vaguely preferred it to what we currently have."
The following 3 tables divide the 276 support comments into 3 categories of 225, 26 and 25 respectively. The last column on the right of each table has cumulative totals for that table.
1) Definite support:
001 | 002 | 003 | 008 | 009 | 010 | 011 | 012 | 016 | 017 | 021 | 022 | 023 | 025 | 028 | 030 | 033 | 034 | 036 | 037 | 038 | 039 | 040 | 041 | 042 | 25 | |
043 | 044 | 047 | 049 | 051 | 052 | 053 | 054 | 055 | 056 | 057 | 058 | 059 | 060 | 061 | 062 | 063 | 064 | 065 | 066 | 068 | 069 | 070 | 071 | 072 | 50 | |
073 | 074 | 075 | 076 | 077 | 078 | 079 | 081 | 082 | 083 | 084 | 085 | 086 | 087 | 088 | 089 | 090 | 091 | 093 | 094 | 095 | 096 | 097 | 098 | 099 | 75 | |
100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 126 | 127 | 129 | 100 | |
130 | 131 | 132 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 160 | 161 | 125 | |
162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 180 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 150 | |
192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 175 | |
221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 239 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 200 | |
248 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 267 | 268 | 269 | 270 | 271 | 273 | 274 | 275 | 276 | 225 |
2) Support and wanting more change:
004 | 005 | 007 | 014 | 017 | 020 | 045 | 067 | 092 | 125 | 128 | 133 | 138 | 158 | 168 | 178 | 181 | 204 | 205 | 209 | 215 | 238 | 240 | 249 | 266 | 25 | |
272 | 26 |
3) Support with reservations:
006 | 013 | 015 | 018 | 019 | 024 | 026 | 027 | 029 | 031 | 032 | 046 | 048 | 050 | 080 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 139 | 151 | 152 | 159 | 179 | 188 | 255 | 25 |
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. So far, I don't see how 3 impartial competent closers can be assembled for the RfC. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 03:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake, so now we're not going to have closers announced at the beginning??? I object very strongly! Mr. Stradivarius, you cannot determine consensus simply by blowing whichever way the wind blows. There is a complete imbalance between the arguments in this thread between those that argue for three closers named from the start, and those who are simply making a WP:IDONTLIKEIT gripe about what happened last time. Yes, I know that Sarek made the right call last time. I've said so, repeatedly. You can look back and see me say it. But that isn't the point. The point is how to get a good outcome this time, that will be accepted by the community. Does anyone really think that if we just postpone the decision now, that everything will be peaceful when we do get around to selecting closer(s)? Leave it open at the start, and there will be attempts to game it while the RfC is in progress. Ask Sarek to do it (didn't he resign after the last time?), and large numbers of people will complain. Better to get it settled from the beginning. And let me point out something more. The problems with the last RfC were not the fault of the closers. It was the fault of the persons responsible for re-opening it after Sarek closed it. Once the three closers came in, they had to deal with what existed already, what had been created by the re-opening. I know that it is a parlor game amongst WP:V aficionados to demonize the three closers, but they actually acted reasonably under the circumstances. Their arguments were actually reasonable. Go the way this discussion now seems to be going, and I predict the new RfC will get messed up the same as the last one did. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm also in agreement (again!) with Tryptofish about the fact that by the time we had the three-closers situation, the RfC had (been) mutated into a different monster altogether, with its purpose and intent and suchlike having been misrepresented (or simply misinterpreted) giving it a wholly different "feel". It had turned into a pig of a thing to try to close, which bore little more than a passing similarity to what it had been before it was viewed predominantly through shit-coloured spectacles. I, too, think that what they did was reasonable in respect of the New Monster which had been created, though it wouldn't have been reasonable in respect of the original unadulterated animal. Our biggest challenge here is to take whatever steps we can to remove the shit-coloured spectacles from the viewers, and ensure that they see The New Animal in its genuine light, with a truly objective analysis of the comments from all sides on the last one. There's little more effective than verifiable facts to dispel inaccurate memories and myths. Pesky ( talk) 09:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that we may be mis-remembering stuff even more quickly, like on (this) the same page 1-2 days after it happened. NOBODY accused the three closers of acting improperly. About the roughest thing said by anybody was by me, and that was (bolding/italics added) "Third, anybody even innocently associated with that travesty series of events that began with the reversion of the proper close would be like throwing gasoline on a fire." And I think that BobK basically just said that one of them made errors. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 10:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This has likely has been discussed but just looking at it from the outside. It would be easier if the discussion sections for each proposal were directly under each of the draft sections, instead of all the drafts first and then all the discussions. Just sayin. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out, there are fundamental problems with proceeding. Was this mediation prompted by a dispute about the "under discussion" tag that is currently in WP:V? Perhaps an RfC on not placing "under discussion" tags at WP:V would get consensus and settle that dispute.
In any case, instead of pursuing an RfC on 5 options that has no chance of reaching consensus on any of them, the ideas from all the discussions here could be used to suggest incremental edits at WP:V. The current state at the protected Verifiability policy page of first making edit requests at WT:V and getting consensus, before an admin would implement it, could be continued for desired policy stability. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
As we have now found three previously uninvolved admins who are willing to close the RfC, I can see no further barriers to us putting it up live. I'm going to copy the draft over to the RfC location, and change the wikicode so that it will work in the actual RfC location. For now, I will leave the draft notice on, and leave it without an RfC template. Please check over the links, check that all the drafts are showing the correct content, and check that all the other little details are displaying/working correctly. Unless anything urgent turns up, I will remove the draft notice, put up an RfC template, and ask for the main RfC page to be protected, at 10:00 am on Thursday June 28 (UTC). I would also like you to use this time to iron out any small issues with wording that remain, such as brought up at the end of the "closers" section by North8000. If you need more time, then of course I will consider it, but I think two days should be enough. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 13:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm reverting the changes to Question #7 for further discussion.
North, if you didn't realize that #7 had gone into the draft, that was your own oversight, because it was raised for discussion on this talk page before it went in. It is in the thread "More general questions" (subsection of "Finalizing the statements in part 2").
Tryptofish's addition is a valiant attempt at compromise, but it makes #7 much too long and convoluted.
There needs to be an alternative to the view presented in #6. And it needs to be a simple statement, not a book.
Kalidasa 777 (
talk)
00:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a solution, albeit at the cost of lengthening the RfC a bit more, would be to make the list of views/questions an even dozen. By this, I mean to leave #7 as Kalidasa has reverted it, but insert a new #8 (bringing the total number to 12). The new 8 would be something like what I had tried to add in response to North's concern: "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then I would like it to explain that this does not mean that material must always be included so long as it is verifiable." As far as I can tell, that would address everyone's concerns, and would have the added virtue of breaking down the issues so that they don't get mixed together. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Here are a few possibilities, good and bad:
North8000 ( talk) 18:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just added Pesky's question to the RfC draft, as there wasn't any objection above, and it looked like it was in danger of being forgotten. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, please let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ( have a chat) 06:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The RfC has officially started. Thank you all very much for bearing with me through all of this! I have one more favour to ask, though - could someone help me to add the advertisements to all the different pages listed in the RfC instructions? (I should have been in bed hours ago, and I have work tomorrow.) — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 16:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who feels like thanking Mr Strad for bringing the process to this point. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 06:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that the policy talk pages should get another notice that is more visible and direct. Like a RFC template or something. Right now there is just text; most of them where I just copied Mr. Stradavarius's text in, in response to their request for help. North8000 ( talk) 16:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
We have finally finished setting up the RfC and all its trappings - thank you all very much for your efforts. You have all put an enormous amount of work into this, and that deserves some serious recognition. You've done a great job. Now, technically this mediation was due to finish after the RfC ended, with a step nine where we break down the results. However, circumstances have changed a little. Actually, this may be the last mediation that ever happens at MedCab. I didn't want to reveal this while we were still working on the RfC, but plans to close MedCab down and mark it as historical have been under way for a while now. This is all tied in with a planned large-scale restructuring of the dispute resolution system on Wikipedia, and you can expect to see some interesting developments on this front in the next few months.
To cut a long story short, this mediation has been holding up some of those plans, and to get things moving I'm going to close the mediation down now, rather than wait for the end of the RfC. But don't worry - we will still go through step nine as we would have done had it been hosted here. All this means is that we will hold the discussion at the RfC talk page, rather than here. I hope that no-one minds too much about the change of venue, and I'm open to other suggestions if anyone thinks somewhere else may be better. I'll still be keeping a close eye on the RfC, and you can always message me on my talk page with any questions. Thanks again for all your time and patience. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 15:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
When it comes up, Template:Spa is useful for the RfC. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the earlier post (at the beginning of this section) I think it's a bit more than an SPA situation; they are obviously not new to Wikipedia. And have developed very strong views of the policy and potential changes during their one page one day editing history. :-) But so far there doesn't seem to be a rash of these. North8000 ( talk) 10:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
In the past, whenever there have been borderline spa comments, I've typically commented to just note them, and the closers will assess as appropriate. So we can just let them... Oh wait (looks at the top of the RFC again) when did I become a "them"? lol (goes and crawls back under my lurker stone... - jc37 18:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I realise the RfC is far from over, and I'm far from a neutral party so I'm not best placed to judge the emerging consensus on the RfC page--but equally, I think it's not premature to say that we can see the future shape of WP:V emerging. I know I pushed hard for View 11 to be included, and I see that on the percentages users might seem to be in favour of a large-scale revamp of policies, but the relatively low participation in View 11 implies that there's not much actual appetite for this approach. We're still going to have WP:V in roughly its present form (as well as WP:NOR and WP:NOT). With regard to WP:V's future lede, I see Option D as the emerging winner. I'm disappointed to see that views 4 and 10 are inconclusive, so I'll take that to mean that there's no consensus in favour of cutting VnT out of the policy completely. The emerging consensus at View 1 instructs us to remove it from the lede.
Since there's no other obvious place to put VnT, I propose that we could revert back to Blueboar's compromise, putting VnT as a separate paragraph directly below the Option D lede. The result looks like this... subject to the rest of the discussion and the closers' views, what do we all think? Workable?— S Marshall T/ C 22:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally with hindsight I think view 3 isn't going to be much help to the closers; people are opposing it for diametrically opposite reasons.— S Marshall T/ C 18:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If, amongst us all, we can work on a really effective and creative and non-upsetting way of bridging that enormous gap, it will most probably be one of the best things that each of us, as individuals, has ever managed to do. It's not impossible, and it's a goal very much worth striving for. A huge challenge; I've always found that the best way to look at huge challenges is to try hard to avoid thinking "That can't be done!", and work from "OK, if someone held a gun to my head and said it had to be done, no matter what, then how might it be possible to do it?" Pesky ( talk) 04:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Today, the watchlist notice ended. I'd like to lobby us for requesting a repeat posting of the watchlist notice for maybe 7 days at the end of the RfC. As we've already discussed, it's a good idea to advertise all we can. Let no one have a valid reason to say that they didn't know about it! Also, one user asked at the RfC talk page about having one of those top-of-page banners like the ones used for fundraising. Personally, I think that would be excessive, but I figure I'd point it out here, in case anyone else wants to argue for it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
In other words, I wouldn't worry about it now, and the usual inrush of comments as a discussion nears a close is likely to alleviate those concerns anyways. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I just realized that the RfC is going to close in four days! We really need to have the watchlist notice re-posted ASAP, including saying what the close date is, in my opinion. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I want to say a very big congratulations to everyone who worked on this! A job well done, and we should all be proud! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a zillion people are to be thanked for their efforts and participation. North8000 ( talk) 19:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
In the mediation agenda I included a step nine - a breakdown of the RfC results. However, everyone seems really quite pleased with the results, so I'm not sure it's actually necessary. Maybe it will be enough for everyone to take a month or so to let the results soak in, and then tentatively discuss the issues the closers raised on the verifiability talk page? If people would like my help in deciding how to approach future discussions, though, I would be more than willing to give it. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Congratulations North8000 ( talk) 12:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think we all need to just sit back and digest our champagne. After a reasonable interval, it would be very helpful if we could discuss here whether further discussions should be started, but there's absolutely nothing urgent about it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)