Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-03/Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

This case has been withdrawn by its requesting party. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the dispute?
The entire RFC and especially it's talk page.

Who is involved?
These are just the most active talk page participants, dozens of other users have made comments.
 * User:Beeblebrox
 * User:Chzz
 * User:Off2riorob
 * User:UncleDouggie
 * User:Cenarium
 * User:Yaris678
 * User:WhatamIdoing
 * User:Tryptofish
 * User:KimvdLinde
 * User:Kingpin13
 * User:CycloneGU
 * User:My76Strat

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think mediation would help Off2riorob (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
I know you guys normally deal with content issues but we really need some help at this RFC. The main goal of the entire process was to decide whether to implement pending changes, and to formulate some sort of policy. As we enter the seventh week of discussion the process seems to have been stalled out entirely. There are numerous proposals for how to proceed, with none of them having broad support. It has also been alleged that there is a group of users that are deliberately stalling the process in order to reverse the fait accompli they perceive as having been perpetrated by the Foundation add/or Jimbo Wales by getting PC "temporarily" removed and then indefinitely stalling out the RFC.

What would you like to change about this?
In phase two (related analysis) the community delivered a fairly clear mandate that they wish for this situation to be resolved sooner rather than later. Proposals that aim to do this should be the only ones considered as there is already a clear community based consensus on this issue. The conversation needs to be managed and/or structured by someone who has not been an active participant up until now and has not expressed strong feelings about PC.

How do you think we can help?
Phase three is about to be closed. Its only purpose was to make a short term decision on using PC while the discussion is underway. This is entirely secondary and not relevant to the original goal of the RFC, which was to decide if PC is to be kept in the long term and to formulate a policy for its use. We already have a long open discussion, now referred to as phase one, and a period of endorsing specific positions, known as phase two. An analysis of the results of phase two is available here. We need an organized, centralized discussion on how to proceed. Please help.

Mediator notes

 * Assigning self. Well, this may be the very first time that the Mediation Cabal has taken on an entire community discussion for mediation. I really don't see any reason why we shouldn't, and I think I have a reasonable idea how to start it off. I guess we can't go through the usual approach of getting everyone to say they are aware of mediation and accept it; but then because we are not really talking about a specific group of disputants, we don't have to consider it in this same manner anyway. My recommendation would be that my involvement largely take place on the talk page, because that way the mediation discussion has broad-spectrum involvement and general consensus rather than a clique having a little separate chat here. Consensus will be our watchword and whilst the MedCab cannot determine that consensus nor recommend what that consensus should be, we can work with the discussion participants to bring some order and dialogue to the process of obtaining it. What do people think? --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my first mediation; if I am commenting in the wrong place, please relocate it. I am replying to Nicholas, however.
 * I believe that a possible avenue for mediation, rather than generating twenty pages of discussion over the next two weeks, would be to have some of the most active people both in support and against pending changes itself, and get them all involved in this mediation process itself. It would be difficult to do a whole community thing, but maybe after a mediation with the most active contributors for both sides we can come to some kind of proposal to then set to the community.  That might be the best way to proceed.  CycloneGU (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a lovely idea, certainly, but unless it's on the public talk space any outcome would simply represent that of the key contributors. I do think your idea is nevertheless a good one, that the MedCab case here can be the crucible for structured proposal development which, on conclusion of the mediation, is then forwarded to the RfC proper for analysis. My only misgiving on this is the RfC may well have rotten further by the time such consensus proposal(s) are developed here, and they will then be futile. I wonder if the best approach is a mix of Mediation Cabal involvement on the RfC itself, as well as meanwhile a Common Proposal Track being developed here by those who want to join in. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally am open to whatever you and any participants think is best. BTW, should BB or myself start notifying people of this mediation for the purposes of participation or do you prefer to do that in a more structured way?  CycloneGU (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will post the user talk page messages for you (using the MedCab template) once I've done some more investigation on this case. For placing a general call for participants, you are very welcome to do so. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already invited Chzz, whom I respect as a user (I believe this is a shared respect), and figured he might like an early chance to note this on his watchlist. I think his opinion and mine on phase 3 did differ, but for our own personal reasons.  That is unrelated to the mediation however.
 * I may personally notify other users as well if I have had communication with them. CycloneGU (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Analysis in progress: A user (named in the initial request) has recently written to me stating that he feels that consensus has already been reached on the RfC talk page for action. While I investigate this, please feel free to discuss the issues surrounding the RfC and possible strategies, but no attempts at forming proposals for RfC reconstitution/action/closure should be made until I've properly investigated the talk page. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: It has been brought to my attention that may already have been selected on the RfC itself as a mediator. This is currently being looked into, and information will be listed here as available. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: Multiple representations have been made to me to say that there is insufficient consensus for the Mediation Cabal to handle this request. Again, I will look into this and post information in due course about whether this case can proceed or not, probably after I've asked on the talk page. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A talk page message has been left for asking whether he was indeed nominated as mediator, and whether he can provide input. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * was selected to assist in determining the final RfC consensus but, according to discussions on his talk page, he was not elected as a mediator. This means there is no WP:DR process conflict. Therefore, we should look instead at gathering consensus for a mediated proposal development (or not, as the case may be, if there is a lack of consensus) amongst those editors currently in disagreement. Does that sound right? That is, we first need to decide there is Wikipedia consensus for this mediation to try to come up with proposal(s) to put to the RfC page. *screams* My brain hurts. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked another two people from the list to chime in on this. Sorry about your brain hurting. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I am also adding my name to the list of people involved because I have a strong interest in the outcome of this as well and simply want to keep abreast of the proceedings. I also have been involved on numerous occasions, including trying to repair a poorly made and doomed poll by one user back in October that still was considered an unconstitutional poll despite my best efforts. My own efforts are trying to make peace between everyone while still supporting Pending Changes. If Beeblebrox thinks this does not constitute my inclusion in the list above, he may remove me, but I still want to know what is happening. CycloneGU (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Never fear! Anyone is welcome to join a Mediation Cabal case at any point, whether listed in the request or not. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I still added myself because I was one of the most involved people in October, and got myself involved again since the end of February when I squashed another badly timed poll. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * RE:NewYorkBrad: I approached him about closing the current phase, which he kindly agreed to do and nobody has objected to that as far as I am aware. That is all that has been committed to at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ideal Outcome
Question (to anyone who wants to answer): What would your ideal outcome from this current RfC be? What is, in your opinion, the best possible result that could be obtained from this current RFC? --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll go first. The ideal outcome would be an agreement by the wide majority on what to do with Pending Changes.  The problem we have been facing to start with has been that everyone has a viewpoint, and getting 200 or more people to agree on a specific outcome is next to impossible without the mediation step that has been undertaken since a talk page discussion within the last hour.  Personally I prefer Pending Changes, but forcing people to agree with me isn't the goal; it's coming to a consensus on what to do.  I'll let BB add on.  CycloneGU (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The ideal outcome would be a decision on whether and how to use pending changes. Yaris678 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ability of Current RfC to Produce an Agreement
I'm not making a comment either way (as a mediator, I cannot), but it might be a worthwhile question to ask whether the current RfC actually can produce an agreement of majority consensus as to what to do with Pending Changes. Do you think it still can? (This is a genuine question, which will help me a lot.) --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a hard one to answer; I'm sure additional insight aside from just mine would be helpful. My personal feeling, having been involved since the trial itself, is that there are people who have seen vandalism not make it into tested articles and think we can't live without it, and there are others who did not like the way the process worked (pages load too slowly, too much potential for edit conflicts), or otherwise saw it not work on specific pages (let's not even mention Barack Obama, a bad page to test on) and thus think it should be scrapped.  Those were the general "sides", if I may use that term, by October.  Given the trial ended August 15 and we were still disagreeing all around in October, and even now after several months' break from the discussion until February and still disagreeing; I honestly don't think a consensus can be achieved in the present form.  CycloneGU (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, discussion so far has merely indicated that there is a wide spectrum of opinions on both subjects (whether and how to use pending changes). There is also a wide variety of opinion on what to do about that.  My opinion is that we need to take our time and work through the issues.  If we keep asking people for a "final answer" then we'll keep getting no consensus.  There will be a majority who want PC in some form but further disagreement on what that form should be.  If we work though the issues there is a chance that we will understand why different people want different things.  We may even come up with an idea that is better than any yet mentioned!  Yaris678 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My ideal outcome, indeed the primary goal of the RFC from the moment I started it some 50+ 43 days ago, is to get an answer to the question "are we going to allow pending changes to be used on Wikipedia, and if so, in what manner?" That should be everyone's ideal outcome since that was the whole point when we started out. For the last two weeks we've been sidetracked with the issue of what to do with it while discussion was underway. I personally don't care about that issue as it is not relevant to the future but what happened happened and the rfc was stalled while we dealt with that. That should be closed soon but as can be seen on the talk page there is no agreement on what to do next. We have maybe five ideas floating around and none of them seems to have broad support. We are in danger of failing to resolve the primary issues this RFC was designed to resolve. Personally I like PC and I think it would be relatively simple to craft a policy, indeed I already have done just that, but the most important thing is to resolve this even if it means turning off PC and not using it at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox stated that the goal of the RFC was to determine the future of pending changes and to formulate some sort of policy. First, the RFC achieved two important goals: (soon) resolving the question of the current use of PC and clarifying the community's view on several specific aspects. However, resolving the question of future use of PC is beyond the grasp of this RFC, because it requires formulating a policy for its use then proposing it to the community. I think Beeblebrox thought that the final closers of the RFC could both determine if there were consensus for a use of PC, and which use of PC that would be; but in my opinion this is not feasible. Because it would require way too much extrapolation, and would give way too much discretion to the closers. The only way forward I consider viable, is to draft a proposal then propose it to the community, I've outlined the framework here. The issue is really what should we do next in the debate on PC, not the future of the RFC. So I suggest that users give their opinions on that point, but do so on the proposals already made (like mine) before making new ones. Cenarium (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping?
This is all being discussed in an RfC. I cannot see the purpose of the MedCab separate from that. If it is needed, then so be it; but I do not think it is. Medcab is for "informal mediation for disputes" - what is the dispute? I've been named as a party, but I do not understand the actual question raised.  Chzz  ► 23:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Beeblebrox needs to answer that. CycloneGU (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is actually a good point. In essence the dispute appears to be caused as a result of the RfC process having broken down, and a lack of consensus on RfC progress. I'd call that a dispute, or at least a mediatable case. But, actually, hm. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Above, CycloneGU wrote, The ideal outcome would be an agreement by the wide majority on what to do with Pending Changes - surely, that's the RfC issue - not a dispute? Why would MedCab do better than an RfC - which is, right now, ongoing?  Chzz  ►  23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't start the process, I am merely participating now as it has been started. And yes, that is the ideal outcome.  We've now gone for seven and a half months with no outcome one way or the other, and now people seem to be changing their minds for the sake of progress one way or the other.  Maybe my reading into the situation is flawed.  Beeblebrox is probably the one to ask about this proceeding, I simply followed along here when a link appeared in another discussion and added Wikilinks to the details.  CycloneGU (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (the links should clarify  Chzz  ► 00:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

That's wonderful Chzz! Thanks! --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care one whit where we discuss this. If it will assuage your concerns of forum shopping we can do it at the RFC talk page. All I want is an uninvolved party to help us resolve the deadlock we seem to be in. I mentioned you as an involved party because you are one of the users most heavily involved on the talk page. It's not ArbCom or anything, nobody is aiming to get anyone "in trouble" at least I'm certainly not. In retrospect I we probably should have had an impartial meditator from day one. I mentioned this a few times in phase one but nobody seemed to want to discuss it at the time. We're stuck. We need help to resolve the situation. We have someone willing to help. Let's let them do it. Here, there, somewhere else, doesn't matter. What matters is getting the RFC to come to some sort of conclusion in a reasonable frame of time. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, remember, there isn't really any such thing as forum shopping on a mediation process. The reason for this is because a mediation process cannot cause anything to happen extrinsically to itself, except that agreed upon as a course of action. So, there isn't the same fear. I think actually it's healthy that we've got the number of different venues from different perspectives; it gives a useful range of perspectives. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add as well that the links presented by Chzz are my previous attempts to ask for help, except for the one at BN, which I was not aware of before now. I have never asked anyone to take my side, just asked for impartial third parties to help us keep the discussion moving in a forward direction. It's been one mess after another, and I'll take my share of the blame for having caused some of it. I wouldn't call it forum shopping so much as asking for help everywhere that could be thought of until somebody finally said they would try and help. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please let's put this inconsequential issue to rest and instead consider the proposed ways forward, which we haven't that much discussed. If we didn't reach a consensus on a way forward, it's essentially due to a lack of discussion (that doesn't mean some mediation can't be of help though). Cenarium (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure; I'm not accusing anyone. I'm just trying to make it clear that this matter has been discussed on many other forums. The above were, really, just examples. Jimbo's talk, WT:PROT, and many user talks - and these are just recent examples.


 * It'd be nice to keep all the arguments in one place, that's all I'm saying; and I do not quite know what the purpose of this MedCab request is - other than, "sort out the PC situation". As the "PC situation" is already up for discussion at RfC, I'm unclear what we're doing here.  Chzz  ► 01:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to explain it again. The discussion of how to proceed seems to be at an impasse. There are several proposals but none of them seems to have broad support. Several of the proposals would be mutually exclusive of one another. I'm hoping a mediator can hope us break that deadlock so that we can proceed. I'm not asking them to decide what consensus is on the use of PC, I'm merely hoping they can be of some help in guiding the process into whatever the next, hopefully final, phase of the RFC will be. I am also asking that a mechanism be established that will guide discussion and disallow any proposal that does not acknowledge the mandate we received in phase two to come to a conclusion in the near future. We already have a consensus on that issue so it is my contention that any proposal that ignores said consensus is automatically unacceptable. A few users support such proposals nonetheless, so that is maybe the first issue we will need to address in order to move forward. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no mandate. The community can decide whatever it likes.  Chzz  ► 03:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that is supposed to mean. The community has already spoken on this. They decided they want us to resolve this. The few of us that are particpating heavily on the talk page should not decide on our own to overrule the wider community that participated in the first two phases. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is overruling what?  Chzz  ► 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, we really seem to be going in circles, you and I. The community has told us, in phase two, that they want a resolution to this sooner rather than later. It is my contention that we therefore have a mandate to only consider proposals for further action that would result in a solution in a relatively short span of time. As in, within a month, a month and a half at the most. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my contention that there is no such mandate; that the idea that this must be resolved in a certain way, within 45 days or whatever, is entirely your interpretation.  Chzz  ► 03:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "PC is confusing" has 61 endorsements
 * "A final Decision needs to be made soon" has 45 endorsements.
 * Clearly, it's more important to make PC much easier to understand and useable. Once this process is completed, we can present the idea to the community again and try for another trial, perhaps a longer one this time with data collected on an ongoing basis.  CycloneGU (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox: The endorsements of "A final Decision needs to be made soon" were due to frustration with the lack of progress. You're only perpetuating the distractions with your endless cries for "help". The only decision you can pressure a group to make is to remain with the status quo, which in this case means the situation before the start of the trial. Are you seriously trying to force everyone to agree to use pending changes per some perceived "mandate"? You might as well take a sledge hammer to every pillar of Wikipedia while you're at it. If your answer is that any decision would be fine, your present approach is failing miserably. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps now the mediator has some idea of why we are having trouble coming to agreement on anything. I can't say anything or do anything without it being wildly misinterpreted and having low-grade accusations of bad faith directed at me. I have to explain everything a hundred times because it keeps getting misrepresented later. Even when I have substantive evidence to support my assertions there are derided in this manner. Six weeks I have been dealing with this and trying to move the proceedings along. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly clear, I firmly believe that your failings have occurred despite the best of intentions. There are some individuals who have exhausted my supply my AGF, but you're not among them. May I suggest that continually repeating yourself isn't helpful. I understand that you want to go for broke, I really do. I don't think that would be a productive path. I'm willing to discuss it further, but repeating your previous statements certainly isn't going to change my opinion. It would be better to try and understand why others feel differently, without any assumptions of bad faith, and then speak to those concerns directly. It would also be most helpful to respond directly to the proposals made by others with no references to the superiority of your own proposals. You haven't responded at all to my proposal to work through the issues. How can you say that the process has broken down when you aren't responding to good faith attempts? —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * +if you could avoid comments like thanks for fucking up another attempt to inject some sanity into this nightmare  Chzz  ►  05:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exasperating and I've pretty much reached the point where I don't give a flying fuck what happens to PC anymore. Close the RFC, leave it open for a year, propose a policy, set Jimbo's house on fire, whatever. Enjoy yourselves. Request for mediation withdrawn. Unwatchlisting everything related to this disaster. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposals
For the sake of clarifying what it is we are trying to do here, these are the proposals on the talk page. There's a lot there so if I missed anything please feel free to add it.
 * The questionnaire- A series of ten questions to be answered by users on individual subpages. The results would be reviewed by a "jury" who would draft a policy for immediate use, to be improved as needed in the future. As you all know this was my vision for the final phase and I still strongly believe in it. Some users objected to the wording of the questions, which I changed to accommodate those concerns, but others users felt the entire idea was too flawed to succeed. During the short period this was actually live a few users did fill out and return questionnaires.
 * The dogfight- My name for it, probably not the name the users proposing it would have picked. Have users draft policies and then ask the community to pick one. Main objection was that this would be highly contentious and unlikely to produce a usable result.
 * Further trials-Basically back to square one with using pc on a trial basis. Main objection was that we are supposed to be moving forward, and that we might be killed for even suggesting it.
 * The reviewing experiment-Give the draft policy to 20 users and have them each review the same set of 50 randomly selected changes chosen from the types of articles and users that would be eligible for PC under the policy. Check how well their reviews agree with each other and collect feedback on where they felt the policy provided inadequate guidance. Main objection-addresses only one aspect of PC, seems very subjective/vague.
 * Go for broke-My attempt at a compromise solution after the questionnaire seemed to have been rejected. Users given the choice between switching it off entirely, immediately adopting a draft policy with the intent that problems with it can be worked out over time as it is used, or keeping pc but not using it until a fully fleshed-out policy had been explicitly approved by the community. Man objections were that some users felt a simple binary choice with no middle road option would be better and some users felt it would not be possible to read a consensus from the results. However it is worth noting that several users did indicate support for this idea in the hours after it was first posted.
 * Write a policy through collaboration then present it to the community and ask them to approve it.- Pretty self explanatory. Discussion kind of stalled out around the same time this was being proposed so there hasn't been a lot of feedback on it but my main objection to it is that I don't think it's likely it will be that easy and frankly I like my "go for broke" idea better.
 * Just have a poll on keeping or rejecting PC and worry about the details later-Main objection was that this had already been explicitly rejected, and that polling is what got us into this mess to begin with.
 * The essay contest- Have users write essays over a period of several months. Read those essays and use them as the basis for a policy proposal.- Main objection is that will take way too long and is unlikely to produce usable results.

I think that's all of them but like I said I may have missed something. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of work to do before another poll. Let's do the work first.  I am reviewing Phase II at this time.  CycloneGU (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have understood what I am trying to do in this section. I am merely presenting the various proposals that are already on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand it. I just dismiss the second-to-last proposal immediately. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You left out my proposal to resolve the issues that consumes 18 inches of the talk page. Well done. Does this mean that we shouldn't resolve the issues? —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you will direct your attention both directly above and directly below the list you will see that I have indicated in both locations that I may have missed something and anyone who sees that I have should feel free to add it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was being sarcastic. ;-) —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolving the issues would be an integral part of the proposal to draft a proposal. We have collected the views of the community, we'll now have to further discuss and compromise on the issues. As an example, we'll have to find a compromise between 'PC should be applied liberally' and 'PC should be applied sparingly', both have similar levels of support. Cenarium (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Phase 2 Findings
For the sake of completeness, here are the most-endorsed views in Phase 2. Anything with over 40 endorsements is included.
 * 1) PC helps with libel on BLPs - 67 endorsements
 * 2) PC is confusing - 61 endorsements
 * 3) PC reduces vandalism, but so does semi-protection - 59 endorsements
 * 4) Now that the trial is over, and Jimmy Wales has approved it, it should be used as is available - 56 endorsements
 * This was changed at some point during Phase 2 and is not a credible result, and thus can be disconsidered.)
 * 1) Pending changes reduces vandalism - 55 endorsements
 * 2) PC should not be used until consensus is gained - 51 endorsements
 * 3) PC is not a fact of life despite Jimbo's decision - 49 endorsements
 * 4) Reviewers need to know whether they can be held liable for approving an edit - 46 endorsements
 * 5) A final Decision needs to be made soon - 45 endorsements
 * 6) Any tool that inhibits edits by new users will tend to drive away new users - 43 endorsements
 * 7) Under PC, more editors can edit - 42 endorsements

Analysis
Based on these results, it can be strongly agreed that BLP articles are the best place for Pending Changes - something I've also noted a few times in the last 30 days. Other than this, I think a good next step for Phase 4, per item 2, is to pull together all of the PC policies, including roles of reviewers, details of what PC is, and so on and rewrite everything from the ground up with input from the community. This includes policies of when to use PC over SP, or vice versa (per item 3). Make it entirely clear right up front. (Note that negative comments of those only saying that they do not want to see PC implemented and have nothing else to contribute would be pointless - this would be constructive discussion from all interested parties. Voting comes later - much later.)  Unfortunately, Jimmy is not God and even though 56 people think his saying start using it means that's it, it's implemented...it's still not a very clear procedure. He's merely given the go-ahead to decide what to do with it, I believe.

Anyone who has an opinion on this, let's discuss. I'm merely analysing the data. CycloneGU (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of those 56 people added their endorsement to that statement (not one of mine by the way) did so with the caveat that they didn't endorse the part about Jimbo. Actually the wording was changed at one point so some of them didn't know they were even endorsing that part of it. It was added back in later. That was an unfortunate incident, nobody should have been changing the wording of the position statements after endorsements had been added to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one thing to learn, at least: next time, transclude the actual position statements from a protected page.  Chzz  ► 03:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will figure out what came 6th and add it, maybe more too. CycloneGU (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ CycloneGU (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate repeating things, and I hate the discussion just spreading to other forums; however, I feel the necessity to repeat what I said, regarding the "Phase two":

The only conclusions that I can draw are, a) lots of people care about lots of things, b) some people care about some more than others, c) we all want Wikipedia to be better.

That is all we can conclude, from those results, with any degree of accuracy.  Chzz  ► 04:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in full agreement with all three points you quote. It's kind of an irony that item (b) simply complicates things; one person might think it's more important to do one of the latter items more than the highest-endorsed ones.  Can the findings be considered a consensus that people in general think these are the most important things to consider?  CycloneGU (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can conclude anything else - for many reasons, which I've elaborated upon previously (and see no point in regurgitating). Again - why are we discussing this here?  Chzz  ► 04:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Beeblebrox requested mediation. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the idea; I'm merely re-presenting the findings here for mediation purposes.  I do agree it's better to have a comment page for all these discussions and mediator involvement there, perhaps.  Unfortunately, the February 2011 page is kinda not the place right now - and besides, it's April, we need a new title.  CycloneGU (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree to mediation and apparently no one else does either, including you. I agree with Chzz that is the wrong place to be discussing proposals. Why can't we post the summary of proposals on the talk page and discuss them? Are you asking NicholasTurnbull to make some kind of ruling? —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Mediators don't make rulings. They mediate. Unfortunately the participants have to have a genuine interest in resolving the situation if it is to work. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You're suggesting that we rewrite PC policy. This should be done of course, with the intention to integrate it as part of a proposal for a use of PC which we shall then be submitted to the community, based on the views expressed in the RFC with differences of view resolved through compromise, as I suggested here. Please comment on that so we can move forward on determining ... the way forward. Cenarium (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My thinking about this whole thing is starting to take another direction. I am not sure about it, but I will put it here as a point for possible discussion. "PC should not be used until consensus is gained - 51 endorsements" Maybe the reason we have not reached consensus in all this time is that there is no consensus to implement PC. Would it be a logical fallacy to say that we need consensus to not implement PC? If so, the reason this process drags on interminably is that we simply have not accepted the result. "No consensus" is and must be a perfectly valid result in an environment that operates on consensus. Should we even be having this discussion anymore? PC has not been implemented. Maybe we should, as Wittgenstein once suggested, throw the ladder away behind us. Revcasy (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)