Upedge

Inappropriate RFC terminated

Hi.

This a notice to inform you that your RFC has been terminated because of the lack of clear-cut RFC question and not adhering to RFC format. Please study WP:RFC before calling one and make sure to notify all involved parties immediately.

Opening inappropriate RFC only imposes burden on maintenance staff that are volunteers like you and me. You may open another RFC, but only if you stick to the format and write clear, comprehensive question devoid of comments of editors. State exactly what change in the article you want the community to discuss, support or oppose. Vague sentences like "what do you think about the discussion above" will attract no participants.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC result

Hi. ViperSnake151 implemented the XP end-of-life in the article. That effectively means there is no need to pool "Support"s and "Oppose"s and the RfC is in turn irrelevant.

What concerns me however is how you quickly assume bad faith in people who helped you get your RfC up and running.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you point me at the changes? I don't see them.

As for assumptions of bad faith, I said "some editors", not all. I hope I am aware of the difference between principled and unprincipled opposition; it is only the latter that I object to. If you feel you were unfairly accused, I apologise. Upedge (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

By all means. You will find the changes in Windows XP § Support lifecycle. Perhaps the format is not what you intended but the scope and nature are the same, meaning that you have achieved the endorsement that you sought with RfC and no one is going to dispute Viper on that. But the actual troubles always start after the RfC. You see "Support" and "Oppose" are black and white words; but people never totally agree with one proposal, at least in details. You can discuss the details with Viper or in the article talk page.

As far as I can judge, no one accused you yourself of doing anything bad deliberately; it is important not to take objections in your comments personally. If you think that was bad, you should see WP:FA discussions. Sometimes, there is one little specific thing to do to achieve all you need, no one can do it for you and that little thing is all the difference. This reminds me of something that one friend once told me: A man can choose the best schedule, the most romantic place, put up the most romantic decorations, order the most romantic dinner, kneel on the floor in front of the love of his life and produce the most beautiful ring ever made; but he must not forget to ask "Will you marry me?" Or else whatever he has done is wasted. You study all the guidelines the we send you to read but forget the one little thing that makes the difference. Coupled with the social ineptitude of some editors, it is recipe for disaster.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being blind, but I can't see anything that fits the bill. Could it be something to do with taking time to propagate from different servers? You aren't referring to [rev 601466931], reverted by FleetCommand in revision [rev 601543900] by any chance? Upedge (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be a personal attack to comment on your power of sight but here a comparison of your proposal with what is in the article. The similarity is enough to say that RfC achieved its purpose. For the licensing purpose, the following comes from Windows XP article, revision 601663217:

Your proposal	Equivalent in the article
The ending of support on April 8, 2014 means that after that date no further updates are generally distributed.	On April 14, 2009, Windows XP exited mainstream support and entered the Extended Support phase; Microsoft continued to provide security updates every month for Windows XP; however, free technical support, warranty claims, and design changes were no longer being offered. Extended support will end on April 8, 2014, over 12 years since the release of XP; normally Microsoft products have a support life cycle of only 10 years. [...]
The danger of this for users continuing to run XP is that as security holes are uncovered (as regularly happens with operating system software) XP systems will remain permanently vulnerable to attack.	As the end of extended support approached, Microsoft began to increasingly urge XP customers to migrate to newer versions such as Windows 7 or 8 in the interest of security, suggesting that attackers could reverse engineer security patches for newer versions of Windows and use them to target equivalent vulnerabilities in XP.[115][116][117] On March 8, 2014, Microsoft deployed an update for XP that, on the 8th of each month, displays a pop-up notification to remind users about the end of support—these notifications may be disabled by the user.[118]
Most corporate customers were forced by liability issues to migrate to newer systems[2], but the position of individual customers generated considerable press comment	Despite the approaching end of support, there have still been notable holdouts who have not migrated past XP; many organizations did not upgrade from XP due to the poor reception of Windows Vista, and corporate deployments of new versions of Windows require a large amount of planning, which includes testing and adapting internal applications for compatibility (such as those that are dependent on Internet Explorer 6, which is not compatible with newer versions of Windows).[119][114] [120] In January 2014, it was estimated that more than 95% of the 3 million automated teller machines in the world were still running Windows XP (which largely replaced IBM's OS/2 as the predominant operating system on ATMs); ATMs have an average lifecycle of between seven to ten years, but some have had lifecycles as long as 15.
Migrating to more recent versions of windows was impossible for many since most older hardware is not capable of running these,[3] though for the most recent XP systems this was a viable solution, being less expensive than a new system purchase. Faced with this situation, many commentators considered the option of continuing to use XP, since this involved zero direct cost and involved no effort beyond ensuring current security best practices were followed.[5][1][6] While some were strongly opposed to the idea,[7][2] others saw it as a legitimate response, provided users understood the risk of their system being compromised.	(No equivalent. You might want to discuss it.)
Finally, migrating to a Linux distribution such as Ubuntu was suggested by some as a free alternative to taking the risk of continuing to run XP, while still allowing access to existing data.[4][1][6] Any compatibility problems could be explored before committing to a change by booting a live CD or USB key version,[8] and the city of Munich handed out 2000 such CDs to provide its citizens with a no-cost upgrade solution.[9][10]	ATM vendors and their customers to migrate to Windows 7-based systems over the course of 2014, while vendors have also considered the possibility of using Linux-based platforms in the future to give them more flexibility for support lifecyles.[121][122] (Curtailed by FleetCommand)

You may want to have Guy Macon's idea on this too.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for taking the time to format that for me, I appreciate it. It does miss out a few things that I consider important. For example I think that the continued use of XP is important to talk about, since after all, that's what a lot of people will do, until there is a big security scare at any rate. And the Linux bit is rather limited to ATMs, whereas it's the only free alternative to just sticking with XP. Still, I'll have a think about whether and in what way I wish to continue pursuing this. Thanks again. Upedge (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If Viper can write it so well, I might as well reconsider my opposition in favor of a rewrite. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I had a look at the result of the RfC tag that you entered for the discussion and I doubt that it was what you intended. Let me say straight away that this isn't a criticism - it was nice of you to help me in this way. It just occured to me that you probably didn't intend to insert half the discussion into the wp:requests for comment page, which is what the tag did. Having investigated it a bit it appears that the tag copies everything up to the next signed content into the request. Thus normal useage is <tag>descriptive text<signature>, and if the signature is missing then it goes on copying until it finds one, thus playing merry hell with the reference page. However, please ignore this comment if it was your intention to include so much of the page, I just though that you might not have noticed and would probably like to know. Upedge (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)