Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013/Closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Note: This page is only for the closers to discuss the RfC discussion. Please feel free to discuss anything seen here at Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2013.

Discussion

Ok, I'm not sure what format you prefer, and I'm open to whatever.

The first main point I think we should discuss (to see how we each are interpreting this) is the "weight" of various comments where commenters had one or more "conditions" for supporting/opposing.

Maybe we should make a list of the more common requests. (Especially to see if any of those conditions were anywhere near a consensus.).

But I'm merely broaching the topic. Where would you like to start with this? - jc37 06:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tch. You could've dropped me an email, a talkpage message... :P. Okay, let's get started. Ironholds (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Nod, I accept full blame (looks around for my sackcloth and ashes)... - jc37 15:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, so let's begin. As you say, the first topic is what weight we give comments which had conditions on supporting. This is sort of a multi-threaded problem.

  My perspective; if someone has said "I'd only ever support this if X, Y and Z were done", their comment should be dismissed unless X, Y and Z are common enough to generate consensus for them to be part of the implementation. This isn't a general PC/2 question, this is a very specific one: should PC/2 be enabled under the proposed framework? Unless a particular caveat is widely supported enough to generate consensus that overrides the discussion's general tone, it's not an answer to the PC/2 question (unless we consider it an oppose). Support-with-requisites-and-caveats should be essentially nullified.

  If the caveat takes the form of "This seems good, but it would be nice to have X, Y and Z" I think that's a different situation; that's a support, plain-and-simple. X, Y and Z are not dependencies that must be fulfilled for the user to be okay with the system. That can be treated as a support, and the same as any other support. Ironholds (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  I agree for the most part. Though I think it is worth looking at the various "if only"s. even if each does not have an overwhelming consensus, they may be helpful as a guide to the community's wishes, to those who may wish to move forward on this.

  In particular, there seemed to be a general thought that the "framework" was lacking in this or that detail (I haven't counted how many noted it, just a general impression I get from reading the discussion), and some noted a hesitancy to support or oppose due to that lack, which (if I were to guess) may be part of why we see so many "only if" comments of various types from various commenters. A lot of brainstorming through "voting" seems to be going on here. Though that may not necessarily be a bad thing, it may slightly increase our work as closers, since we're to determine from this discussion what the community wants (or doesn't want). - jc37 15:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry about this, but it looks like I have to drop out :/. As you may have noticed, work has got very hectic over the last few days - I can't guarantee my involvement, and so would rather let someone else jump in than string people along. My apologies for this :(. Ironholds (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Best of luck, that's a really hard job. Jc, I was asking for closers for weeks, so if anyone else was motivated, they'd probably be here already. If you need help with "tallying" certain kinds of votes, I'll be happy to help on this page, but all I can give you is raw data, I can't offer opinions or solutions. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I am reminded of the old story, where the Sgt asks for volunteers to step forward, and everyone takes a step backwards except one surprised individual : )

But that's ok, I guess. I'll give this a couple days to make sure no one else would like to step forward to co-close. And then proceed from there. - jc37 16:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Closure

Ok, so after going through this many many times, and having tried to read other discussions where I could (and noting I didn't find User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's "comments in past discussions"), and having waited quite a while to give time for anyone else to step up to help close, though it looks like it's just going to be me at this point - here goes : )

(puts on my closer hat)

First, there were a handful of editors who supported this only as a test case. There was no consensus for that.

There were several whose support conditionally relied upon certain criteria (such as limited usage) not only among those who supported (User:davidwr for example), but even a handful who opposed (User:Hut 8.5 for example). And there were significant concerns that this rfc was in effect (to paraphrase the words of several commenters) like giving a blank cheque.

I'm copying something from the proposal because it directly impacts the closure result:

Note: This RfC deals with accepting or rejecting any use of PC/2. If general support is found (including conditional support), a separate RfC will be opened after closure dealing with criteria for use, methods of implementation, and other stipulations.

The result of this rfc is: There is only a consensus for implementation if and only if an rfc concerning criteria for its use gains community-wide consensus first.

To try to be clear: without the requirement of community-wide consensus in a followup rfc concerning criteria for usage as noted above, the result of this RfC would have been no consensus to implement.

And along with that, while it did not have consensus to prevent implementation, given that it had the weight of policy argument and a fair amount of those commenting noted this concern, it is recommended that a followup RfC should keep in mind the many concerns about WP:BURO as well as WP:ANYONECANEDIT (third pillar).

(takes off my closer hat for a moment)

This is not part of the "official" close (And comments related to it did not have enough significant weight/support in the rfc discussion to have affected the close anyway.). This is merely a request from a fellow Wikipedian. Several commenters noted that they felt that several of the admin-granted user-rights are given out "like candy" (to quote one commenter). I agree that, in my experience, this is all to often the case. (See also my comment about transparency here.) So this is merely a request from a fellow Wikipedian, but please someone start a discussion/rfc to re-examine the current criteria (or lack thereof) concerning the granting of admin-granted user-rights, and the reviewing of the ongoing usage of such user-rights.

(puts the closer hat back on)

And finally, I have at times noted that I can at times be a bit verbose (hmm, that ceiling is a nice shade of white), and knowing that, I sometimes try to truncate what I say, and following that, then get questioned over whether my close was explanatory enough. So with that in mind (and because we should expect this of closers anyway) I welcome any positive and collegiate (we're all Wikipedians here) requests for clarification of this close, as I do of any close. - jc37 23:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.